Planning Bill

Public Bill Committee, 17 January 2008.

Further written evidence to be reported to the House

Clause 5

Jacqui Lait (Conservative, Beckenham)

I beg to move amendment No. 4, in clause 5, page 2, line 36, leave out ‘may’ and insert ‘must’.

John Butterfill (Conservative, Bournemouth West)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following ame3ndments: No. 5, in clause 5, page 2, line 40, leave out ‘development’ and insert ‘developments in the fields of—

(i) energy,

(ii) transport,

(iii) water,

(iv) waste water, or

(v) waste.’.

No. 6, in clause 5, page 3, line 29, at end add—

‘(9) The Secretary of State may issue a national policy statement under subsection (1) of this section in respect of any nationally significant infrastructure project as defined in sections 13(1) and (2).’.

Jacqui Lait (Conservative, Beckenham)

I welcome you to your first sitting of line-by-line consideration of the Bill, Sir John. I would like to put it on record that I am glad that we are moving on to the national policy statements because on Tuesday, Mr. Illsley had the very difficult job of trying to keep us in order when so much discussion of the infrastructure planning commission depended on the national policy statements. Now that we have finished discussing the IPC—

John Butterfill (Conservative, Bournemouth West)

Order. Mr. Illsley has made that point clear to me. I would be grateful if the hon. Lady would carry on with the subject now under discussion.

Jacqui Lait (Conservative, Beckenham)

I am glad that Mr. Illsley alerted you to the difficulties that we had, Sir John. I will now continue on the issue of national policy statements.

I hope that this will not stop us from having a clause stand part debate, but it is worth putting it on the record that in principle, we believe that national policy statements are a good thing. However, there are serious questions about many parts of the Government proposals.

This first group of amendments is not the most important group, but we think that it is important that we do not see national policy statements emerging in areas other than the five listed in clause 13(5). That is why the amendment would replace the conditional “may” with “must”, with regard to the Secretary of State issuing national policy statements. Amendment No. 5 would bring the list from clause 13(5) into clause 5 to ensure that national policy statements cover only those five areas. Amendment No. 6 is, in effect, another way of ensuring that amendments Nos. 4 and 5 are dealt with. In that way, we could say that it is a supernumerary amendment. If the Government are not prepared to accept amendments Nos. 4 and 5, they could instead accept amendment No. 6.

There has been a big debate in the evidence that we heard and among lobby groups about whether the policy statements should be focused tightly. In the evidence sessions last week we had a brief debate about whether there should be an environmental policy statement. We understand why that suggestion was put forward, but I think that it is important that every policy statement includes environmental considerations, so it is unnecessary to have a separate one. However, there is a demand for one. The Minister is looking either very interested or wishes to intervene.

John Healey (Labour, Wentworth)

I am very interested because the view expressed by the hon. Lady is entirely different from that of her hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East. He supported the proposals of the Liberals last week. That is what interested me.

Jacqui Lait (Conservative, Beckenham)

Indeed, the Minister indicated his interest in this matter last week, so we are going over worn ground. My hon. Friend has accepted the arguments for environmental issues to be addressed within each national policy statement.

James Duddridge (Conservative, Rochford and Southend East)

If my hon. Friend consults the record, I think that she will find that I did not say that I would support, but that I would be minded to support the proposals. I will continue to listen to the debate, but I have not fully committed myself to any position.

Jacqui Lait (Conservative, Beckenham)

What this brief exchange demonstrates is that there is the potential for mission creep in the national policy statements. We are keen that national policy statements be limited to the five issues in clause 13(5). I shall be interested to know whether any of my hon. Friends have positive views on any other area that they think should be brought in. However, for all the reasons that will become apparent, we want to limit the number of areas in which the Secretary of State must issue these national policy statements. One of our principal reasons for keeping it tight is to ensure that there is no mission creep and that the policy on national policy statements is kept clear from the practicalities and the details.

Dan Rogerson (Liberal Democrat, North Cornwall)

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for setting out the reason for these amendments. Most Opposition Members share her concerns about the potential for mission creep, as she puts it. The amendments have enabled us to discuss the matter. The Minister can tell us whether the provisions covered in the Bill are the beginning of a new tendency in policy and whether more and more aspects of planning policy will come within them. On that basis, the amendments are sensible, and I hope that the Minister can reassure us that mission creep will not take place.

John Healey (Labour, Wentworth)

May I welcome you, Sir John, to this sitting. We are making speedier progress than we did on Tuesday. [ Interruption. ] Perhaps it is rather early to be tempting fate with such an observation.

Under amendment No. 4, the Secretary of State would be unable to issue a statement setting out national policy in relation to any of the specified fields, without designating that statement as a national policy statement. I am not sure that that is exactly what the hon. Lady had in mind, but that would be the effect of the amendment. She was a little clearer about amendment No. 5. It seeks to restrict the areas in which the Secretary of State can set out policy in a national policy statement so as to match the types of nationally significant infrastructure development which are to be covered by the new regime: developments in the fields of energy, transport, water, waste water and waste. Amendment No. 6 seeks to clarify at this stage of the Bill that national policy statements may be issued in relation to the categories of project set out in clause 13.

My problem with the amendments is as follows. The principal purpose of national policy statements is to bring together all the factors that will be relevant for the infrastructure planning commission when deciding on a particular application. However, there may be occasions when the Secretary of State wishes to set out aspects of national policy in relation to the fields in question, but not to designate them, for the purposes of the Bill, to be the framework within which the IPC should consider applications. That could, for example, be

in the form of an overarching statement of national policy, which may set out long-term strategic goals but which would not necessarily be suitable as a decision-making reference point, or tool, in itself. Such documents would form part of the policy background, which national policy statements would then need to take into account. A national policy statement would also need to explain how it had taken into account the full range of factors that are relevant to the commission’s decision-making process.

Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

I am grateful to the Minister for explaining his thinking on the proposal. However, I want to press him a little further. He gave us an idea of the type of use to which a national policy statement might be put in those circumstances. Given the implications for members of the public, which we discussed when considering the consultation process in earlier clauses, in what fields does the Minister envisage that it might be necessary or desirable to have a policy statement that is not linked to the work of the infrastructure planning commission?

John Healey (Labour, Wentworth)

It is less a question of the field and more of the type and nature of a broad policy statement that may be required or desired by Government. Ministers may not wish to designate it as a national policy statement because it is not specifically suitable or necessary for the conduct of the work of the IPC.

David Curry (Conservative, Skipton and Ripon)

Will the Minister explain what “designate” means, because it can cause a lot of confusion? The clause says that a statement may be “designated” as a national policy statement. Are there circumstances in which a statement that has already been made might subsequently acquire the status of a national policy statement by being designated?

The Minister said that the national policy statements will bring together a wide range of issues that impact on a particular circumstance. Could elements of a national policy statement be comprised of a statement on matters that are relevant and be incorporated into a national policy statement? In other words, is every national policy statement newly minted, or can it be something that already exists or that incorporates elements of existing statements?

John Healey (Labour, Wentworth)

The significance of designation is that it then becomes, for the purposes of the legislation, the principal reference point for the IPC in considering any applications related to that type of nationally significant infrastructure project. To be capable of being designated as such by the Secretary of State, it would have to fulfil the criteria set out in the Bill—the standards that the national policy statements must meet.

It is possible that an existing policy statement could become designated and therefore become a national policy statement, which we discussed in our evidence sessions with reference to the aviation White Paper. Were that to be something that the Government considered, the policy statement, which the Secretary of State for Transport might wish to designate as a national policy statement for the purposes of the IPC and infrastructure applications, would have to meet, and to show that it meets, the criteria set out in the Bill. That includes aspects of consultation, of the sustainable development duty and the other things that we have been considering for national policy statements.

David Curry (Conservative, Skipton and Ripon)

In terms of the procedure that would then follow the designation of an existing document as a national policy statement, the consultation procedures that accompany the national policy statement will be applied to an old document. Any scrutiny that it had already received would not be deemed to have been part of that consultation.

Let me explain further. The Government could well make a statement, and the Select Committee may want to look at and comment on it. It might become a national policy statement, and the Minister has said that there is a procedure laid out for consultation, which flows from a national policy statement. I want to ensure that when something is designated, all those consultative procedures start to flow again and are not deemed to have already been completed or partially completed.

John Healey (Labour, Wentworth)

It might help the Committee if deal with the specific example of the aviation White Paper. As sensitive as it is and as cautious as I am about dealing with it, I shall nevertheless try to do so.

The aviation White Paper is due and the Government are committed to reviewing it sometime between 2009 and 2011. At that point, should the Secretary of State for Transport wish to review it, either as it stands or as the basis of a national policy statement, she would have to consider policy questions about whether it was sufficiently up to date, current and comprehensive. I guess that those would be policy matters for her.

With regard to the Bill, however, the Secretary of State would also have to consider whether the criteria had been adequately discharged, including the extensive scope for public consultation and the scrutiny of a potential national policy statement by the House. If not, she would be open to challenge. Clearly, I cannot say definitely in January 2008 what decisions she might take at that point.

David Curry (Conservative, Skipton and Ripon)

Or he might take.

John Healey (Labour, Wentworth)

Indeed, although I have a lot of faith in the Secretary of State for Transport

It is possible to anticipate that aspects of that White Paper might need to be updated and that the Secretary of State, to meet the criteria that we are setting out for consultation on national policy statements, the likes of which were, of course, not in place when the aviation White Paper was produced, might take the view that further consultation is appropriate. It is probable—it is probably even more certain than that—that the parliamentary scrutiny and examination to which the White Paper is subject would need to be revisited and refreshed to meet the process that we have set out.

Mrs. Lait Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

John Healey (Labour, Wentworth)

May I just answer the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon? I am trying to do so as fully as I can for the assistance of the Committee.

Because of the importance that we are attaching to a new form of more exacting parliamentary scrutiny, it is highly likely that any proposed national policy statement on aviation, whether it is a development or the extant White Paper, and irrespective of what public consultation process was deemed appropriate, would be subjected to parliamentary procedure.

I say bluntly and clearly that I understand the fear that some have that the aviation White Paper as it stands will somehow be capable of becoming a national policy statement overnight. Under the Bill, it will not be possible to say, “Hey presto, here is one I prepared earlier,” not least because of the degree of parliamentary scrutiny required. For a national policy statement to be legitimately designated, the Secretary of State will have to go through at least that process as part of considering moving the White Paper to, perhaps, a national policy statement on aviation. I hope that that explanation is helpful.

Jacqui Lait (Conservative, Beckenham)

I am sorry if I interrupted the Minister in full flow, but I did not want him to move on from this point until I had asked my question.

It will be very reassuring for everybody to have that clear explanation of how the Minister sees aviation policy developing, and of course the waste policy of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs also needs to come into consideration. However, in explaining his objection to our amendments, he has put that explanation in terms of existing policy documents. Will he give an example of how he sees those policy documents working? I say that because we have the aviation policy, the waste policy and potentially a nuclear policy, but how will they operate in any new area, or within those five areas but with a new document that will not be seen to be part of the national policy statement process? Is his objection entirely retrospective?

John Healey (Labour, Wentworth)

I think that the hon. Lady is asking me, as her right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon was asking me, for a little more explanation of my concerns about amendment No. 5. Is that correct?

Jacqui Lait (Conservative, Beckenham)

Yes. I apologise if that was not clear.

John Healey (Labour, Wentworth)

Let me try to give the hon. Lady and the rest of the Committee another example; I think that, where it is possible for me to do so, that would be helpful. Let us take the field of transport. We have talked about aviation. Previously, we have talked about the prospect of ports as major infrastructure and the possibility of a national policy statement designed to deal with them. One could also see the role of a national policy statement on major highways and possibly on rail networks.

Given that one might anticipate with just those examples, and there may be more, that there would be four national policy statements, each one designed to provide the principal framework within which the IPC would be expected to take decisions on major applications for infrastructure and investment in those fields, it is also possible to envisage—if the hon. Lady were ever to be Secretary of State for Transport—

Jacqui Lait (Conservative, Beckenham)

I look forward to it.

John Healey (Labour, Wentworth)

Perish the thought. However, let us deal with hypotheticals, because the hon. Lady encourages me to do so. It is quite plausible to imagine that to give broader coherence to those policy statements in four areas, she may want to be able to issue some type of overarching policy statement on transport. Nevertheless, that overarching statement would not be specific or directly relevant for the IPC’s consideration, because the principal framework, were the IPC to consider a port’s application, would be the national policy statement on ports. The same would be true for airport-related developments, and so on.

The hon. Lady may or may not remember that that type of overarching policy statement is the sort of thing that Rod Eddington’s report on aviation suggested would be valuable. The reason he said that was because it would be likely to give a consistent, analytical and broad policy framework within which the specific national policy statements for those types of infrastructure would be developed. In that circumstance, the Secretary of State might want to produce a policy statement related or relevant to those sectors, but she might not designate it as a national policy statement because the principal framework for the purposes of planning applications and consideration of those applications would be the national policy statements specifically designed for ports.

That is why I am concerned about amendment No. 5 and the way in which it would constrain what is potentially a sensible and important scope for the Secretary of State to be able to issue statements without them automatically having to be designated or categorised as a national policy statement.

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

I am following the Minister’s argument, but the debate is about retrospection, which rightly is a fairly rare bird. He should read clause 11 in conjunction with clause 5. Clause 11(3) states:

“The Secretary of State may take account of consultation carried out, and publicity arranged, before the commencement day for the purpose of complying with the requirements of section 7.”

That means that if a statement issued before the commencement day is to be designated as a national policy statement, the Secretary of State is not bound to take into account the consultation carried out in connection with that statement. That is a great worry.

John Healey (Labour, Wentworth)

We can dwell on that at length when we discuss clause 11. However, if the hon. Gentleman checks the record, he will see that I was trying to exemplify the points made by the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon. I said that it is possible that a Secretary of State for Transport might take the view that fresh consultation is necessary to comply with the standards for a national policy statement in the Bill.

The hon. Gentleman is right that there is provision for Secretaries of State to consider consultation that has already taken place on the content of a policy statement in coming to their judgments. That is reasonable. It will also be up to the House and ultimately the courts to consider that. The case that I used to exemplify the point was the aviation White Paper. I was quite careful about how I described the hypothetical situation of the aviation White Paper being considered as a potential national policy statement.

Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

On the Minister’s point about the overarching national policy statement in a particular area which is not for the purposes of the IPC, surely, however it is dressed up, it is inevitable that such a document would be at least a material consideration for the purposes of any application considered by the IPC. Under those circumstances, what harm would be done by requiring it to be designated as a national policy statement?

John Healey (Labour, Wentworth)

The hon. Gentleman may well be right. It would depend on the circumstances of the individual case. However, I take him back to the evidence that we heard last week and the observations that he and the Conservative Front Benchers made about the value of a single consent regime for the IPC. I know that the hon. Member for Beckenham would prefer to see another body dealing with such things. Nevertheless, having a principal framework and a single consent regime would be enormously valuable to whoever considers such applications.

The hon. Gentleman puts the point as strongly as, “What is the harm in it?” The implication would be that if the statement were designated as a national policy statement, the IPC would be obliged to take into account at least two documents, two frameworks, two policy statements. That is not sensible, and I do not think that it is consistent with some of the views that he and his hon. Friends have expressed to date.

Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

Of course, material considerations of all kinds can be taken into account, so it is difficult to see how there is a contradiction. I am grateful for the Minister’s explanation, but he will appreciate that we want to reinforce the single consent regime by ensuring that everything that might be encompassed within the national policy statement is clearly and specifically set out. There may be a difference between how my hon. Friends and I would achieve it, but I do not think that we are saying anything that undermines the basic thrust of our argument. If he also looks at subsequent amendments tabled by us, he will know that we are trying to toughen up the policy aspect but remove the site-specific aspect of things. We are seeking to do that throughout this part of the clause.

John Healey (Labour, Wentworth)

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point a bit more clearly the second time around. I explained that an overarching policy statement of the nature that I have talked about would be taken into account, incorporated and reflected in the national policy statements. In other words, its relevance would be its incorporation into the national policy statement for ports or for aviation, which addresses his concern that relevant factors would be covered without creating a duplication or triplication of national policy statements, and thereby undermining the objective of having a single principal source of reference and a single consent regime for the IPC. I hope that that is helpful.

Jacqui Lait (Conservative, Beckenham)

I am sorry to push the Minister on what I thought were fairly key but not terribly controversial amendments, but I seek further clarification.

Let us take transport. The Minister referred to the possibility of a port policy statement, a roads policy statement and a railways policy statement, and to his desire that the IPC, or, in our case, the Planning Inspectorate and the Minister, does not have to consider more than one document. However, creating new ports can only be done if there is access to that port. That, by definition, means roads and rail. Is he saying that a national policy statement on ports would not include roads and railway? If that were the case, the IPC would have to look at three documents: the statement on railways, the statement on roads and the statement on ports.

John Healey (Labour, Wentworth)

No, I am not saying that. We discussed that already. I, and witnesses who came before us on Tuesday, pointed out that in any ports national policy statement consideration would have to be given—

Jacqui Lait (Conservative, Beckenham)

Of course.

John Healey (Labour, Wentworth)

Sorry, but I am trying to clarify for the hon. Lady what I and the witnesses said. In the development of any ports national policy statement, judgments would have to be made about the extent to which the access infrastructure was an important element of any sensible policy statement that the IPC could be expected to use as a framework for decision making. I am saying that again; I am not saying what the hon. Lady paraphrased as my position.

I hope that I have made clear my concerns about the impact of the amendments. I am not sure that they would have the effect that the hon. Lady seeks. I hope that she is using them as probing amendments and, if so, that she feels that they have been useful. She was right to say earlier, from a sedentary position, that I was tempting fate when I stood up about half an hour ago to say what good progress the Committee was making. I hope that she will withdraw the amendment.

Jacqui Lait (Conservative, Beckenham)

I think I made it clear that I did not expect the group of amendments to take quite the time that it has. However, it has raised some interesting points which we will have to pursue subsequently. The Minister was quite generous in indicating that, while they may not be the most perfectly drafted amendments, he had some understanding of what we were trying to achieve. We would be more than willing for him and his experts to redraft them. That brings me briefly back to the matter of mission creep, which we do not want to see. I notice that some amendments have been tabled which relate to transport, indicating that footpaths would be regarded as an infrastructure project. Will he comment on that before we finally decide whether to vote on the amendment?

John Butterfill (Conservative, Bournemouth West)

I think that goes a little wide of this group of amendments. I ask the Minister to be brief.

John Healey (Labour, Wentworth)

We will have a good opportunity to look at that when we come to it. The reference to footpaths relates to footpaths that are an integral part of the development of major new roads. No doubt when we come to a detailed debate on this, we will want to hear in fuller detail what the hon. Lady has to say. My good friend and colleague the Under-Secretary of State for Transport eagerly awaits that debate. He will be keen to respond in appropriate terms.

Jacqui Lait (Conservative, Beckenham)

I was under the misapprehension that perhaps the Under-Secretary had something to tell us, and I was giving him the opportunity to do so. We look forward to hearing what he has to say. We will consider what the Minister has said. It was very interesting. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

I beg to move amendment No. 69, in clause 5, page 2, line 38, after ‘State,’, insert—

‘(aa) has been approved by a resolution of the House of Commons,’.

John Butterfill (Conservative, Bournemouth West)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 280, in clause 5, page 2, line 40, at end insert ‘, and

(c) has been subject to Parliamentary consideration in accordance with section [Parliamentary consideration of national policy statements], and

(d) has been laid before, and approved by, a resolution of each House of Parliament.’.

Amendment No. 184, in clause 5, page 3, line 5, at end insert—

‘(3A) A statement may be designated as a national policy statement for the purposes of this Act only if 4 months have elapsed since the proposals were sent to Parliament and the Secretary of State has considered any report produced by any committee of either House of Parliament on the proposals.’.

New clause 6—Parliamentary consideration of national policy statements

‘(1) The Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament a draft of a statement which the Secretary of State proposes to designate as a national policy statement for the purposes of this Act.

(2) The Secretary of State may not lay a national policy statement before Parliament under section 5(1)(d) until after the expiry of the period of Parliamentary consideration of the draft of that statement, as defined by subsection (3).

(3) The period for Parliamentary consideration of a draft national policy statement means the period of 60 days beginning on the day on which it was laid before Parliament.

(4) In reckoning the period of 60 days referred to in subsection (4), no account shall be taken of any time during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which either House is adjourned for more than four days.

(5) In preparing a national policy statement under section 5 following the laying of a draft of that statement under subsection (1) of this section, the Secretary of State concerned shall have regard to any representations made during the period for Parliamentary consideration and, in particular, to any resolution or report of, or of any committee of, either House of Parliament with regard to the document.

(6) Together with a national policy statement laid before Parliament under section 5(d), the Secretary of State concerned shall lay a statement giving details of—

(a) any representations, resolution or report falling within subsection (5); and

(b) the changes (if any) which, in the light of any such representations, resolution or report, the Secretary of State has made to the draft of the statement laid before Parliament under subsection (1).’.

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

I mentioned that retrospection is one of my concerns about this whole area. We in Parliament are wary of retrospective legislation for good reasons. In the wrong hands it can cause quite a bit of mischief. According to the Minister the other day, national policy statements will not come forward very soon; it will be 18 months or a couple of years before they come in. Why cannot existing statements that might become national policy statements be subjected to the same criteria and rigour as policy statements that will be created after the Bill is enacted?

It is essential to ensure that the public are fully engaged in the process. As the Minister well knows, nothing impinges more on an ordinary member of the public than planning law. They may not be engaged in it every day or discuss the minutiae of policy, but they get engaged in it when it affects them because it can damage their property rights, their quiet enjoyment of their property and so on. As mentioned previously, of the 13 examples of large projects mentioned in the Bill, 10 are potentially or obviously bad neighbours. We have to be careful because we must be seen to be totally open. There must be a proper opportunity for the public to get engaged at all stages.

Amendment No. 69 would lay an obligation on the Government to place a national policy statement before Parliament. I am delighted that the Minister has tabled new clause 6, which effectively does that.

John Healey (Labour, Wentworth)

My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe tabled new clause 6.

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

I hope that it receives a fair wind, because it is absolutely what is necessary and would greatly improve the Bill. If we are to have this retrospection, at the very least we must have public consultation and parliamentary scrutiny too. Will the Minister tell the Committee in due course how many of such statements that are already in existence does he foresee coming in as national policy statements, if that is not an impossible question to answer? If it is, clearly, I will not receive an answer, but if it is not, I would be greatly obliged to receive one.

I mentioned that we must be careful about retrospection. I am very much taken by the wording of new clause 6, because it fleshes out far more of the intention that I had in mind when I tabled my short amendment.

My other concern is that clause 5(5) essentially gives the Secretary of State the power to decide what level of detail is to be provided in the national policy statement. That is at the discretion of the Secretary of State. Other commentators who are far more versed in planning law than myself have explained that there are great concerns about that. The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, for example, said:

“The government’s failure to include a national spatial framework for the proposed infrastructure plans is extremely disappointing. A framework would supply a link into the regional spatial strategies and provide the bedrock for national policy statements. Without this map, government policy could ignore regional inequalities, leaving many regions neglected. In planning terms, this policy is like a map without reference points.”

That is quite important.

A similar point was made by Sir Peter Hall, the eminent town planning academic, when he said:

“Doubts deepen when it emerges that they would refer to individual pieces of infrastructure: airports, railways or ports, rather than transport as a whole. So the Department for Transport could produce a statement on airports without considering the case for a new high-speed rail line. To an extent this has already happened. The white paper stresses more than once that pre-existing statements, notably the 2003 airports white paper, should be automatically incorporated into the new national statements, with only cursory revision to deal with developments such as the rise in the profile of the climate change debate and the case for limiting air traffic growth”.

There are genuine concerns. It is not a case of opposition politics for the sake of it. I know from the way in which the Minister is dealing with the issue that he is trying his best to explain the position, and he has been very generous in taking interventions. Nevertheless, this measure is crucial.

Quite honestly, I have always had a difficulty with retrospective legislation. Some of the existing policy that may formulate national policy statements may well be worthy, proper and acceptable, but it must be seen to be so. In that regard, we must have a public consultation properly undertaken. It should not be the case that that consultation “may” be taken into account by the Minister, as set out in clause 11, but rather it should be the case that it “shall” be taken into account. That change, coupled with parliamentary scrutiny, which, after all is said and done, will not delay the passage of this Bill, would deal with the problem.

I would fully adopt what is set out in new clause 6 and regret that I have not signed up to it. The time frame set out in that new clause is reasonable; it would not add any delay to the passage of this Bill, but strengthen and democratise the process, and that, surely, is a good thing.

Clive Betts (Labour, Sheffield, Attercliffe)

It is fairly clear from the comments that I have made so far that I have a great deal of sympathy with the aims and objectives of this Bill and the intention of the Government to try to ensure that we have more appropriate, better, more efficient and more effective ways of considering major planning issues on major infrastructure projects, while recognising the appropriateness of ensuring that the general public, appropriate interest groups and, of course, Members of Parliament have the right to be involved in that process.

We are looking at what I think everyone has accepted is a crucial part of that process, namely, the formulation of national policy statements. Indeed, it has been accepted that national policy statements, particularly when they relate to certain localities, almost effectively determine the outcome of the planning process. They are, therefore, extremely important.

As I said, I certainly do not question in any way the general good aims of this legislation or, indeed, the good intentions of current Ministers when they say that they are committed to a full and proper process of consultation on the national policy statements, both inside and outside Parliament. In tabling the amendments, my only concern is that even though Ministers might have good intentions now—properly expressed and taken at face value from my hon. Friend—if those are not put into some sort of formula embodied in legislation or in the rules of the House, unfortunately, in 10 years’ time, other Ministers might ride roughshod over those good intentions, if they are not required by the laws that we pass or the rules of Parliament to act in a certain way.

John Healey (Labour, Wentworth)

Does my hon. Friend really believe that we are likely to have a change of Government in so short a time as 10 years?

Clive Betts (Labour, Sheffield, Attercliffe)

No, but it is just possible that we might have a change of Minister.

While commitments given by Ministers in Committee and on the Floor of the House are important in giving reassurance on the intention as to how national policy statements will be considered in the future, it is important to go a little further if we can tempt Ministers down that road. I am sure that the ministerial statements in response to that point have already been written and we will have an explanation as to why it is perhaps not a good idea to be so specific about how those matters will be considered. However, I ask the Minister to recognise that many of the concerns surrounding the legislation come not only from organisations that do not want it at all, but from other organisations, such as the Royal Town Planning Institute, that want the legislation to have a fair wind and also want to be certain that the assurances given about the role of consultation in the process of setting up the national policy statements will be delivered in practice. I hope that my hon. Friend will look at amendment No. 280 and new clause 6, which stand in my name, and see that even if they are not precisely to his liking, he could move a little further in that direction than the Bill currently does.

I also recognise that there is an issue in relation to what we put in legislation and what is in parliamentary procedure, and that clearly needs to be resolved. I know that my hon. Friend has said that he is meeting the Chairs of the relevant Select Committees to look at the issue of parliamentary procedure. In the new clause and the amendment, I have not tried to stray down the road of saying to Parliament, “We will enshrine in legislation how you are going to conduct internally your part in the consideration of national policy statements.” In amendment No. 280, I am simply trying to ensure that Parliament has time to give proper consideration to national policy statements when they are drafted and to approve them when they are eventually formulated.

New clause 6 lays out in more detail the timetable in which Parliament might be allowed to do that. I am not prescribing how Parliament should do it. It is entirely up to Parliament to determine the nature of its scrutiny, whether it is done in Select Committee, whether a special Committee is set up, whether it is done on the Floor of the House, or in a Select Committee and then referred to the Floor of the House. All those are properly matters for parliamentary rules and procedures to determine.

If Parliament is going to have the opportunity to decide how it is going to scrutinise draft policy statements, it must have the proper time to do so. That is what new clause 6 tries to set out: a proper window of opportunity during which Parliament can determine precisely how it will consider the draft national policy statements before it. I hope that Ministers will at least consider that.

I return to the point that many individuals and organisations who feel that the legislation is generally moving in the right direction want some reassurance about Ministers’ commitments to democratic consideration, which they want to be more firmed up, with certain considerations written into the legislation. I hope that Ministers recognise those concerns and genuinely consider how they can go some way to meeting them.

Jacqui Lait (Conservative, Beckenham)

All the amendments in this group are trying to help the Government get themselves out of the hole into which they dug themselves in the ministerial statement of 27 November, which stated:

“To provide the stronger role for Parliament, we encourage the House to establish a new Select Committee with the main purpose of holding inquiries into draft national policy statements in parallel with public consultation. We suggest that this Committee should be comprised of members from existing Select Committees on Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, on Transport and on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.”—[Official Report, 27 November 2007; Vol. 468, c. 11WS.]

That rather put the cat among several pigeons because, in essence, it was telling the House what it was going to do, and I cannot imagine a quicker way to get the House of Commons on its high horse than for the Government to tell it what to do. We are trying to help them out of this hole with all the amendments, including that which the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy so ably moved, and those to which the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe spoke. We would all agree on exactly the same aim.

We are keenly concerned that Parliament gives adequate and full consideration to the national policy statements. There are many suggestions about how that can be done, but it is not for the Government to tell the House how to do it, as the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe pointed out. I understand that the Minister is planning to meet the Chairmen of the relevant Select Committees to try to sort out the mess that they got themselves into, but that no date has been fixed. I hope that at some point during the Committee, the Minister will report back to us so that everybody who has these concerns, such as the Royal Town Planning Institute and other outside organisations, as well as ourselves, have a good idea of the parliamentary way forward for consultation.

Many concerns have been expressed. For instance, it is entirely possible that a national policy statement on nuclear power might not take as long to go through the House, because the issue has been fully debated over so many years, as one on a totally new area of technological development in fossil fuels such as carbon capture. There is no need to set down a formulaic procedure whereby every Select Committee must have an inquiry; that is entirely up to each Select Committee to decide. However, we need to know that Parliament will have a vote on the matter at some point. We need to know that what Parliament has recommended is not just accepted by Ministers but taken seriously into consideration. If Ministers do not agree with Parliament’s recommendations, they must give a clear explanation to Parliament as to why. We need to know that when Parliament decides on a national policy statement, there will be a substantive vote, not one that is taken on the Adjournment. We all know that it is very rare to have a vote on the Adjournment, and technically it does not give the answer that Parliament would wish to have.

All of us are trying hard to help the Government come to a satisfactory conclusion with Parliament on a structure to, and formula for, genuine parliamentary consultation and consideration. We all want that, but currently the proposal is to run it in parallel with outside consultation. I can see considerable difficulties with that proposal, too, but it is not within the scope of the amendments before us. We want parliamentary consideration to be fully taken into account, and any disagreement between Ministers and Parliament should be resolved by a vote in Parliament. That is crucial. The national policy statements must have the necessary validity to be accepted by the British public. As the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy said, planning issues are deep within the British psyche, because everyone understands them, and if we do not get the provision right, the system will be brought into disrepute and there will be an even bigger disconnect between Government, Parliament and the people.

That is why it is so important that the Government take on board the amendments. We, like the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe, will not be fussed if they wish to redraft them, but if the British public are to accept the policy statements, the Bill should, by the time it leaves the House, include an agreed formula for proper and thorough consultation between Government and Parliament.

Dan Rogerson (Liberal Democrat, North Cornwall)

Hon. Members have made a persuasive case for including in the Bill a cover for the Government’s public commitment to parliamentary scrutiny of national policy statements. One of the most important aspirations of the Bill, which is shared by the majority of people from whom we have taken written and oral evidence, is the need to ensure that when individual applications are considered, some matters of national importance can be dealt with and taken out of the equation, because, currently, public inquiries cause the process to drag on far too long. The Liberal Democrats share that sensible aspiration. However, if the process is to be valid, and if people are to be confident that the decisions on framing national policy statements stand up, as a national policy, the statements must be scrutinised nationally.

The Bill must include the provision that Parliament will consider national policy statements in detail, evaluate them and have the opportunity to suggest corrections when Members feel that there are problems. That provision would be one of the system’s strengths. Members from all parts of the House will have examples from their constituencies of problems that have occurred and applications that have been dealt with in certain ways, of which some will have been unsuccessful, and some will have been successful, and that collective experience and wisdom could contribute a great deal to the statements.

There will of course be opportunities for formal consultation without parliamentary structure, but if we are to invest the statements with the authority that the Government seek, it is vital that Parliament has the opportunity to consider them. The Government have said publicly that the process will take place, but when we are framing legislation, that is not good enough. We need something in the Bill that says that it will take place and that there will be adequate time for it. I, like the hon. Member for Beckenham, hope that by the time the Bill emerges from consideration in this House and another place, it sets out how the process will take place. I commend the hon. Members for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy and for Sheffield, Attercliffe on exploring methods of doing that. I hope that we will have an opportunity to express our firm support for such a proposal as a Committee.

James Duddridge (Conservative, Rochford and Southend East)

I, too, want to thank hon. Members for putting forward the amendments and the new clause. The degree of parliamentary scrutiny of national policy statements in the Bill is inadequate. I was excited when I heard that new clause 6 was a Government proposal but then disappointed, with all due respect to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe, to find out that it is a Back-Bench proposal. I am sure that it will be looked on favourably by the Minister. I hope that he will take away a number of ideas.

It is essential that we have full public and parliamentary scrutiny. By parliamentary scrutiny, I mean that there should be a substantive debate on the Floor of the House, followed by a vote. It is wholly inadequate to push the proposal into the realm of Select Committees. Those are already overburdened and provide too strong a distraction from the main Chamber, which should be the thrust of this place. I have served on the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and on the Select Committee on International Development.

As a member of the International Development Committee, I served on the Quadripartite Committee, which provides a similar level of parliamentary scrutiny to that which is proposed by the Minister as an alternative to the amendments. That Committee, while doing its best, is currently looking at whether the arrangement is working. The Minister is looking to replicate an arrangement that is not working at the moment. There is the additional problem of pulling together different Select Committees. The Quadripartite Committee has semi-permanent representation from the four bodies, but any member of those Committees can turn up and has voting rights.

Jacqui Lait (Conservative, Beckenham)

Will my hon. Friend outline for the Committee the problems with the Quadripartite Committee?

James Duddridge (Conservative, Rochford and Southend East)

It does not have the same strong dynamic that a Select Committee has because the group does not work together; it does not have the same level of staffing support; because it does not meet as frequently, it does not have the right momentum; and it does not have a broad enough set of focuses. In addition, in Committees that are brought together from the memberships of other Select Committees, there are strong Chairmen with different views in terms of substance and style. The Minister’s proposal for parliamentary scrutiny is riddled with problems.

On Second Reading, one Chairman of the proposed Committee mentioned that the four Chairmen had got together and expressed surprise that they were hearing about the proposal for the first time. I am very disappointed, given the strong comments made on Second Reading, that the meeting between the Minister and those Chairmen has not gone ahead. If it had, perhaps the Minister would be proposing slightly different measures and would be slightly more receptive to the proposals in amendment No. 69 to provide the proper parliamentary scrutiny that is needed from the full House.

Unless that scrutiny takes place, how will hon. Members contribute to the substance of the debate if they are not on one of those four Committees? It is wholly inappropriate to go forward with the Minister’s proposal and I urge him to look at the matter again. Very strong points were made by a number of hon. Members on Second Reading and very strong views are held by all members of this Committee on this matter.

David Curry (Conservative, Skipton and Ripon)

I begin with a note of caution. A certain amount of tail chasing is going on because it is not clear at what stage a document becomes a national policy statement. We all agree that there should be a process of consultation, but does a document come under scrutiny and then become a national policy statement, or is it postulated as a national policy statement and subjected to scrutiny before being confirmed? Much of this debate is slightly circular in that sense.

I am very cautious about the recourse to Select Committees. I chaired the Agriculture Committee and the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee for a number of years. For my sins, I serve on the Public Accounts Committee and the Standards and Privileges Committee, so a great deal of expiation is being delivered at the moment.

Select Committees are under a huge strain, and, as far as we know, the Government still intend to set up regional Select Committees. The Minister is also responsible for the regions, so he should be able to tell us what has happened to the proposal, which was made before the summer recess. It will soon be a year since that wonderful constitutional innovation was announced, and it seems to have died in its sleep; it has had a sort of cot death. Is it still alive?

The demands on Members’ time are huge. There is the Chamber, which we all allege is the heart of Parliament, although I have my doubts about that—occasionally it is, but it is not constantly so. There are also Select Committees, and most colleagues want to serve on Public Bill Committees from time to time to keep their hand in because they are part of the day-to-day debate. We invented Westminster Hall, which is another diversion for Members.

When I was Chairman of a Select Committee there were times when five colleagues would disappear because they were on a Standing Committee or they had to be in Westminster Hall. The idea that we will be able to put together a super, Joint Committee is wishful thinking. If it does happen, it will denude the existing Select Committees, which will have to scratch around like mad for a quorum.

I want to make a different suggestion: the issue should be put to a Joint Committee of both Houses, for which there are precedents. The Minister keeps saying that we must have expertise because that is what counts. There is an awful lot of expertise just up the corridor. A Joint Committee of the two Houses would make fewer demands on Members of the House of Commons and be able to draw on the expertise of people in the other place. This is not an aspirational statement—

James Duddridge (Conservative, Rochford and Southend East)

Or a job application.

David Curry (Conservative, Skipton and Ripon)

It is neither. I fear that any aspirations I may have will be short-lived after next week’s debate.

I am looking for a practical way in which proper, informed scrutiny can take place without either draining other scrutiny activities of the House or being just a token. We have a Joint Committee on Human Rights, which works well. A Joint Committee would be able to report to both Houses; it would not replace final scrutiny in both Chambers but it would get us over the problem of getting together the expertise in the time available. I make the suggestion for the Minister’s consideration and, indeed, for the consideration of the House, as it is a decision for the House at the end of the day, that that might be an intelligent way of taking forward what are bound to be broad issues of policy, but which contain a lot of detail.

Technical expertise will have to be brought to bear on what I suspect will be very complex documents. The national policy statements will not be written on a couple of sides of foolscap; there will be volumes, with annexes attached, and the work involved in producing them will be hugely demanding. We will have to look for someone to do a bit of lateral thinking if there is to be effective scrutiny of them.

John Healey (Labour, Wentworth)

I shall deal with the points raised and try to be as clear and firm as I can about our commitments, how important parliamentary scrutiny is and how the Government will ensure that they play their part in that process. Such commitments are rather unusual for Ministers to make at this point in a piece of legislation.

It is hard to anticipate precisely the number of national policy statements, but the annexe to the document published on November 27 identifies those that are likely to be made. The short answer to the question of the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy about how many national policy statements we expect is up to or around a dozen.

The hon. Gentleman was right to say that public consultation and parliamentary scrutiny are essential, and I entirely subscribe to that general approach. The Bill’s provisions and the Government’s commitments underline that. Both those things are essential, and they will be central to the development and, ultimately, the designation of national policy statements.

I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe said that the legislation is moving us in the right direction. I understand his desire for a firm Government commitment to the role of Parliament, and we will respond to that as far as possible as we consider the Bill. However, I should clarify one point, not to do with scrutiny, but with what underpins some of his arguments in favour of new clause 6. A national policy statement containing location-specific elements would not pre-empt an IPC decision. Like any other national policy statement, it would provide the principal framework within which the IPC would consider any applications, but there are clearly some areas, sectors or, to use the terms in the Bill, fields in which it will be sensible to identify suitable locations for certain major infrastructure developments. It will likewise be sensible to rule out other locations.

I suspect that we will return to the question of whether including location-specific elements in national policy statements is reasonable and right, but they will be an essential part of some national policy statements. When they are included, an individual application will nevertheless need to be considered in detail, which is what the IPC is for. It will need to examine applications in detail and, clearly, it will have the power to reject applications as well as to approve them. Like any other decision-taking body, it should be expected to do the former in certain circumstances.

Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

I am genuinely grateful to the Minister for that helpful explanation. However, does it follow that when a national policy statement refers to locations—I see the sense of what he said—there should be alternative locations? Has he envisaged a situation in which a national policy statement would say, “We need two facilities but we have identified only two sites.”? Such a situation would pre-empt the IPC. I can see his point on identifying or ruling out certain areas. In certain situations, it would be down to the IPC to decide on specific locations. I see where he is going, but will he clarify the situation?

John Healey (Labour, Wentworth)

The hon. Gentleman delves into a level of specificity that is impossible to respond to in general terms. I suspect that the situation will be different in different policy fields and national policy statements.

The hon. Member for Beckenham said that she was trying to be helpful. Her amendments would not be helpful, but her comments and explanation were. She made a clear argument for not tying Parliament’s hands in primary legislation and for not telling the House, through legislation, what it should do or how it should go about its business.

I was interested in the comments of the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East. He gave a sweeping critique on the weaknesses of the Select Committee system. However, on the importance of parliamentary scrutiny of national policy statements, his proposals and solutions to the problems were not clear. Like the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon, he described himself as cautious of Select Committees. In the end, he was right: at the end of the day, the House must decide how it goes about its business of scrutinising appropriately each national policy statement in the production process. That is the core of my argument. The situation will be different, and it will probably be judged appropriately different—the hon. Lady touched on that—for different national policy statements.

If the hon. Gentleman is worried about the work load of Select Committees, I suspect that he will not look kindly on the content of amendments that attempt to specify that any Select Committee charged with considering national policy statements—under any circumstances, for any national policy statements—would, for example, be obliged to produce a report. It well may do so, but, in certain circumstances, it may decide that that is not appropriate. To tie our hands in primary legislation in the way that is proposed is not sensible.

The amendments and new clause contain at least three different ways of building into the Bill the requirement for parliamentary scrutiny of national policy statements. There are three proposals, and, including the Ministers, I count 21 members of this Committee. There are at least 30 times more Members in the House, and I suspect that each and every one could come up with a slightly different variant on how appropriate scrutiny procedures might be conducted. [Interruption.] Perhaps the bloc of Plaid Cymru MPs would be of a single mind, but that does not actually very much change the numbers or my general point.

My general point is that the proposal that this Committee and this Bill should tie the hands of Parliament, or specify in such detail how it should go about its business, confirms the wisdom of the approach that the Government are taking: first, in principle to be clear, firm and consistent about the essential importance of parliamentary scrutiny as a necessary part of the development, and then the designation, of national policy statements; and, secondly, as a starting point, to propose that we form a special Select Committee to lead that work in Parliament.

To be clear, the Government will consider any reports or observations that such a Committee or such scrutiny provides together with the responses of the consultation, and we will revise draft national policy statements accordingly. In addition, if that Committee were to recommend for a particular national policy statement that time should be made available to debate it in the House, we will make that time available, and we will do that as part of the process before the designation of any national policy statement.

I have explained to the Committee that the Secretary of State, the Leader of the House and I will try to meet the Chairmen of the four Select Committees that may form a suitable quadrilateral Select Committee to consider national policy statements. The Leader of the House has written to the Chairmen, and, at present, the ball is in their court. I hope that we can move shortly to set up such a meeting because it will be an important first step in encouraging the House to consider seriously how it wants to set up its own arrangements to do the scrutiny job that is essential to the Bill, and which I am sure the House would want to conduct.

James Duddridge (Conservative, Rochford and Southend East)

May I encourage the Minister also to set up a meeting with representatives of the Quadripartite Committee and, perhaps, the secretariat to understand fully the problems with the type of structure that he envisages, which we are experiencing already?

John Healey (Labour, Wentworth)

Clearly, we will take into account, as I am sure the four Chairmen of the relevant Select Committees will take into account, the experience of the operation of the existing quadrilateral Select Committee. My view is that the focus and the nature of the Select Committee that we are proposing to consider national policy statements would be different. Its dynamic and focus would be different and not potentially susceptible to the sort of flaws, if they exist, that the hon. Gentleman mentioned.

Clive Betts (Labour, Sheffield, Attercliffe)

I am sure that we shall be clear about what will happen after the meeting with the Chairs of the Select Committees. Amendment No. 280 and new clause 6 prescribe how Parliament should undertake scrutiny. They lay down, first, the right for parliamentary scrutiny; secondly, a period for it to be allowed to happen; and, thirdly, that there should be a vote on each national policy statement, however the House chooses to conduct it. I do not understand why those principles cannot be enshrined in the Bill. I have not heard the Minister address those particular issues, which are simple yet fundamental.

John Healey (Labour, Wentworth)

We had a little exchange earlier. Let us suppose that there was a change of Government, a change of Minister and that, in such circumstances, Parliament wanted to strengthen or change the way in which it scrutinised the national policy statements. If we were to accept new clause 6, Parliament might want more than 60 days to have the report laid before it.

Specifying matters in such detail as proposed by the new clause and amendments is not sensible. It may not suit the purposes of the system or Parliament as it develops. I am yet to be convinced that it is right to specify in primary legislation how Parliament should go about the business of scrutinising the Executive. I have said consistently that we are clear that the importance of national policy statements demands that Parliament holds the Executive closely to account and plays an active part that we recognise and will build into the production of national policy statements before they are finalised and designated.

James Duddridge (Conservative, Rochford and Southend East)

I asked the Minister to meet the Quadripartite Committee or its representatives. There was resistance to that. I have some genuine worries. For him to show the Committee that he is taking the matter seriously, will he arrange for his staff to meet the staff of the Quadripartite Committee? I want them to discuss the issues that it faces and the debates that it is having on forming a Committee in a different way to overcome the problems. I want them to report back to him, so that he does not make some of the same mistakes that the current Quadripartite Committee is dealing with.

John Healey (Labour, Wentworth)

A standing quadrilateral Committee that considers the arms trade generally—the remit of the current Committee—is different from one that may be charged with looking at specific national policy statements as and when they are produced in draft and offered by the Government. If, indeed, the problems identified by the hon. Gentleman exist with the current quadrilateral Committee, they are unlikely to be characteristics that we will see in future. However, when I said that we will take into account the experience of the current quadrilateral Committee, that was a precise signal to him that I will ensure that officials contact that Committee and take advantage of its experience and observations about how it conducts its work to see whether there are any lessons that we could look at for future arrangements.

I am not convinced that the Bill is the right place for such detailed processes nor that it is right for it to specify how Parliament should conduct its procedures. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe, the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy will not press the new clause or the amendments to a Division.

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

With respect to the Minister, who said that he was unpersuaded, I must say that I am unpersuaded, too. I prefer new clause 6 to my amendment. He said that there were three variants of the way in which we can proceed with that Committee. Yes, there are and they have been tabled by three hon. Members who represent three different parties. That is a worry. He said that we can come up with any number of variations, and that four lawyers in a room would have four different opinions, but that statement underpins the fact that we are all concerned about scrutiny, public access and public accountability through Members of Parliament. I was rather hoping that he would say at least that he would consider new clause 6. It is with great regret that I must say that I wish to press amendment No. 69 to a Division.

Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central)

I remind the Committee that with we are taking the following: Amendment No. 280, in clause 5, page 2, line 40, at end insert ‘, and

(c) has been subject to Parliamentary consideration in accordance with section [Parliamentary consideration of national policy statements], and

(d) has been laid before, and approved by, a resolution of each House of Parliament.’.

Amendment No. 184, in clause 5, page 3, line 5, at end insert—

‘(3A) A statement may be designated as a national policy statement for the purposes of this Act only if 4 months have elapsed since the proposals were sent to Parliament and the Secretary of State has considered any report produced by any committee of either House of Parliament on the proposals.’.

New clause 6—Parliamentary consideration of national policy statements—

‘(1) The Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament a draft of a statement which the Secretary of State proposes to designate as a national policy statement for the purposes of this Act.

(2) The Secretary of State may not lay a national policy statement before Parliament under section 5(1)(d) until after the expiry of the period of Parliamentary consideration of the draft of that statement, as defined by subsection (3).

(3) The period for Parliamentary consideration of a draft national policy statement means the period of 60 days beginning on the day on which it was laid before Parliament.

(4) In reckoning the period of 60 days referred to in subsection (4), no account shall be taken of any time during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which either House is adjourned for more than four days.

(5) In preparing a national policy statement under section 5 following the laying of a draft of that statement under subsection (1) of this section, the Secretary of State concerned shall have regard to any representations made during the period for Parliamentary consideration and, in particular, to any resolution or report of, or of any committee of, either House of Parliament with regard to the document.

(6) Together with a national policy statement laid before Parliament under section 5(d), the Secretary of State concerned shall lay a statement giving details of—

(a) any representations, resolution or report falling within subsection (5); and

(b) the changes (if any) which, in the light of any such representations, resolution or report, the Secretary of State has made to the draft of the statement laid before Parliament under subsection (1).’.

John Healey (Labour, Wentworth)

On a point of order, Mr. Illsley. The hon. Member for Beckenham asked me late on Tuesday’s sitting about the National Audit Office and the bodies that it audits, and I promised to get back to her with a list. That list demonstrates that it is standard practice for the NAO to audit national bodies such as the infrastructure planning commission and those that essentially are non-departmental public bodies. I have responded to the hon. Lady and, for the benefit of Committee members, made available a list of the bodies that the NAO currently has responsibility for auditing.

Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central)

That is not a point of order, but I am sure that the Committee is grateful for the information provided by the Minister in that documentation.

Clive Betts (Labour, Sheffield, Attercliffe)

I was reflecting over lunch—a very light lunch—on the Minister’s comments in response to my amendments and new clause. I understand that he will never be persuaded to put on the face of the Bill the level of detail that new clause 6 goes into, but am equally aware of the discussions that he will have with the Select Committee Chairs and wonder whether he would give an assurance that he will report back to us on those discussions in Committee, or on Report if the timing so determines, and give further consideration to the possibility of putting something very general in principle on the face of the Bill: simply a commitment to the House having a vote and being allowed scrutiny. In other words, amendment No. 280 without new clause 6. I am not asking for an assurance that he will do that at this stage, but simply that he will report back in the light of those discussions and give further consideration to that point of principle.

John Healey (Labour, Wentworth)

I welcome you back to the Chair, Mr. Illsley. I will indeed report back to the Committee or the House on the progress of discussions and proposals for scrutiny arrangements for the important provisions on national policy statements in the Bill. I recognise the importance of the parliamentary scrutiny and how strongly that is felt by members of the Committee and will reflect on all the points that have been raised in what has been an extended and useful debate, including those that were put so clearly and strongly by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe.

Jacqui Lait (Conservative, Beckenham)

I, too, welcome you back to the Chair, Mr. Illsley. You will be pleased to know that it will be much easier to keep us in order than it was.

May I thank the Minister for those assurances and also the efforts that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe made? I would, however, like to have a vote on the principle of scrutiny by Parliament, which should not take long in this Committee. I accept the assurances that the Minister gave, but think that it is so important, both inside and outside the House, that proper arrangements are made for parliamentary scrutiny and that they are accepted and understood that I would like to get our views on the record. Therefore, if the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe is minded not to press amendment No. 280 to a vote, I would like to do so myself.

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

I, too, welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Illsley. Just before we adjourned, the Minister was explaining why my amendment, new clause 6 and the other amendments in the group were not necessary. They all related to public participation, accountability and parliamentary scrutiny. In these current days when everything before Parliament is guillotined and timetabled and when perhaps 100 amendments will go untouched and undiscussed when Bills are on Report, I am really not happy that we will not put something on the face of the Bill. I do not want to be stubborn, but think that it is one of the most important issues in the Bill. I would like to press the amendment to a vote.

Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central)

Does the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe wish to press amendment No. 280 to a Division?

Clive Betts (Labour, Sheffield, Attercliffe)

In the light of the assurances given by the Minister on this issue, I will not press the amendment at this stage.

Jacqui Lait (Conservative, Beckenham)

I beg to move amendment No. 229, in clause 5, page 3, line 2, at end insert—

‘(2A) Before designating a statement as a national policy statement for the purposes of this Act the Secretary of State must publish a process and timetable for the production of that national policy statement.’.

The amendment would put a clear process and timetable for the designation of national policy statements in the Bill. It refers particularly to statements that are likely to be passported through. It is important that we have a discussion about and hear the Minister’s views on the timing of this process. The more that we receive information from a wide variety of sources, the more conscious I am that seeking final approval for a national policy statement could be a lengthy process. I tabled the amendment in the hope that the Minister will give us some assurances and that we can tease out our concerns about the length of time that it will take for national policy statements to go through the system. It is probably very difficult to do that for any new policy statements, but let us concentrate for a while on the air transport statement and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs waste statement. This morning the Minister set out how he expected the current aviation policy statement to become a national policy statement because of the review that is already promised between 2009 and, I think he said 2014—

John Healey (Labour, Wentworth)

2011.

Jacqui Lait (Conservative, Beckenham)

I appreciate that advice.

Currently, work is going on on Heathrow’s third runway, which is pretty controversial itself. Far be it from me to give my learned friends any help, but I would have thought that, if the Government hope to make the air transport policy into the national policy statement on air transport, progress on runway 3 will be exceedingly slow, because everyone will be waiting for the finalised national policy statement. And that is only one aspect of aviation.

Would the Minister also tell us how he expects DEFRA to process its waste statement, or even whether that, which is regarded as a national statement, will become a national policy statement? What impact will that have, when everyone is currently concentrating hard on replacing landfill and all its associated difficulties with a variety of interesting new technologies, some of which are completely unpronounceable but may well be infinitely more effective?

Where existing policy statements arise, we would be most grateful if the Minister could give us some idea of the time scale that he envisages for those becoming national policy statements. Given that he was saying earlier today that one Select Committee will be looking at those, how does he expect that Committee to deal with more than one policy statement at the same time without giving us all parliamentary constipation? If we could have some idea of the practicalities of that, I would be most grateful. This is a probing amendment to try and get that information.

Dan Rogerson (Liberal Democrat, North Cornwall)

I shall be brief, given that we have a great deal to accomplish over the next few sittings.

The key question is the Government’s justification of a clear distinction between the way in which existing policy has been framed, and especially consulted on, and that which will apply to a national policy statement. It is fair to say that people around the country, interest groups, campaign groups and industry bodies would perhaps approach Government policy set as an intention in a White Paper—but perhaps tested in some specifics at planning inquiries under the current state of affairs—slightly differently once the Bill is in effect and there is a national policy statement. Once the policy is set, any other means of people commenting on it with regard to individual applications will be circumvented, and, obviously, that policy will inform the IPC’s decision.

It is therefore important that we hear from the Government how something that moves from existing policy to becoming an NPS will meet a higher level of scrutiny, and, as the hon. Member for Beckenham said in introducing her amendment, just what the timetable and processes for that would be.

John Healey (Labour, Wentworth)

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Beckenham for making it clear that she is treating this as a probing amendment. The hon. Lady said that her principal concern was with the “passporting”, as she put it—not a term I would use—of existing policy statements into a designated category as national policy statements. The hon. Lady seems to be concerned that that process might take too long, and that underpins her remarks on the amendment.

As the hon. Lady was kind enough to acknowledge, I went into detail on the stages in the process and their likely timing in view of the aviation White Paper having the potential to become a national policy statement. I hope that that was helpful as a background to the amendment.

In practice, the amendment would require the Secretary of State to set out a timetable for new policy statements, as well as for pre-existing ones, and as the hon. Lady acknowledged, that would be quite difficult. It is not clear how far-reaching the

“process and timetable for the production”—

that is the amendment’s terminology—would be.

The principle at the heart of the proposal is the importance of national policy statements being produced in a timely, efficient and open manner. We will follow that principle in designating existing statements and in drawing up new ones. The national policy statements will vary considerably in complexity depending on the type of infrastructure that they deal with. It is therefore right to leave judgments about the timing and consultation periods—the process necessary to reach the point of legitimate designation—to the Secretary of State.

On the matter of waste strategy, if the Committee follows my logic, it is not a matter for me but for the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to decide and explain whether, and particularly how and when, an existing strategy or policy statement on waste may become a national policy statement

I have explained the stages and the standards that we would require of any policy statement being designated as a national policy statement for the purposes of this Bill. We would not expect to designate a strategy for waste before 2010. I hope that that is helpful to the Committee and to the hon. Lady and that she will withdraw the amendment on that basis.

Jacqui Lait (Conservative, Beckenham)

As I said, this is a probing amendment but I am not entirely reassured by the Minister’s reply because there is such concern outside this place about the potential for “passporting”—I stick with that word—the aviation policy without meeting the high standards that the Minister, and the Committee, wish to see in a national policy statement.

The Minister said that I was trying to work out whether the consultation was too long, but the fear is whether it will be skimped. I therefore hope that he can reassure the Committee and those outside this House that the existing policy statements will meet all the requirements of every other national policy statement in respect of consultation, sustainability and the various directives that are meant to govern them. I should be grateful to have the Minister’s explicit assurance on that matter before I withdraw the amendment.

John Healey (Labour, Wentworth)

I am happy to give it, as I have done several times already. I made it clear that the architecture of the Bill would require any policy statement that a Secretary of State wanted designated as a national policy statement to meet the standards and criteria set out in the Bill, particularly those on consultation and sustainability, regardless of whether it was precisely the same as or largely based on an existing strategy or policy statement or produced afresh. Such a statement would also have to have gone through the process that we propose for Parliament to exercise proper scrutiny. That would have to take place and those standards would have to be met before the designation could be given.

Jacqui Lait (Conservative, Beckenham)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Jacqui Lait (Conservative, Beckenham)

I beg to move amendment No. 224, in clause 5, page 3, line 5, at end insert ‘, which must include flood risk.’.

Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 225, in clause 5, page 3, line 22, at end insert—

‘(g) set out the flood risk of identified locations.’.

Jacqui Lait (Conservative, Beckenham)

This issue was highlighted by the Environment Agency and many other people have expressed their concern about flood risk. Mark Southgate said:

“The Government policy on flood risk is very clear; it is in PPS 25 on planning, development and flood risk, which says that you should look to the lowest flood-risk areas first and to the highest ones only when no suitable alternatives are available. That is a very sound policy, which we would expect to be incorporated within the national policy statements.”——[Official Report, Planning Public Bill Committee, 10 January 2008; c. 102.]

That encapsulates our point exactly.

We are all very concerned about sustainability and climate change. One of the suspected consequences of current climate change is the flooding we saw last summer and a number of Members are suffering from floods in their constituencies as we sit here now. I have an interest here, if not a registrable one, because I have a home very close to Dungeness power station. Many of the potential new sites and the current sites of nuclear power stations are on the coast. I must say that I never expected to see a nuclear power station even proposed for Dungeness again. However, we could have the problem of rising sea levels and continual flooding.

The Government tell us regularly that they have no intention of building their 3 million new homes on flood plains. Given the system that they are trying to put in place, however, I do not know whether they can even get close to that figure, and put houses anywhere anyone would wish to live, if they do not put them on flood plains.

David Curry (Conservative, Skipton and Ripon)

I do not think that the Government have said anything of the sort. If they want 3 million houses, it is said that those would have to be protected, but I am not aware of any pledge that no houses will be built on a flood plain.

Jacqui Lait (Conservative, Beckenham)

Indeed. My right hon. Friend is quite right. Perhaps my use of irony did not come over quite as effectively as I hoped. I absolutely accept what my right hon. Friend says. Even with safeguards, we are expecting a lot of houses to be built on flood plains. We therefore want assurances that the sustainability policy within the NPS includes a very clear statement on flooding so that all of us—house builders, the Environment Agency, the water companies, the county councils who have to deal with flooding, the Highways Agency—can be reassured that flooding issues will be taken very firmly into account in the development of national policy statements.

Richard Benyon (Conservative, Newbury)

In supporting these amendments it is important to look at what we are trying to achieve. Some might argue that an appraisal of the sustainability of any aspect of a national policy statement would not meet the definition of such an entity if it did not include an assessment of flooding risk. It is important to many organisations to put the measure in the Bill, including the Environment Agency, as my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham said. It would create a discipline for those who draw up the statements to look at the important matter of flooding.

Hon. Members will recall the floods last July and the scene of the electricity transfer station near Tewkesbury being saved by a major operation. Had the operation not been successful, vast areas would have been without electricity for a long period. If we imagine that situation occurring to a larger, more strategic power generation plant, we can imagine the problems that we could be building up.

It is vital that flooding be included in policy statements as an item to consider with regard to the potential for future problems. The building of a major highway or any sort of structure could have major impacts on the management of river systems and flood plains, so it is an important issue. Some might say that the amendment would place an onerous obligation on those who will draw up the statements, but it should not do that because there are circumstances in which it would be a perfectly simple, one-line job to fulfil the requirements. Other circumstances might require a more important and detailed look at the situation, but that would only happen if there is a problem. The amendments would require an appraisal of sustainability to include consideration of flooding risk.

David Jones (Conservative, Clwyd West)

May I add my support for the amendment? Indeed, the issue of flooding was envisaged in the White Paper, which states:

“National policy statements would also need to reflect the physical impacts of climate change on nationally significant projects and the need for resilience throughout their lifespan to factors such as increased risk of flood, subsidence or coastal realignment.”

In an era of climate change, it would clearly be sensible to reflect that vital aspect in national policy statements.

I fully accept that the issue of sustainability must be reflected in policy statements. The difficulty is that an expression that would define that is not in the Bill. It is essential to underline, as amendment No. 224 would, the issue of flooding and its overriding importance.

John Healey (Labour, Wentworth)

The hon. Member for Newbury was absolutely right about the importance of the sub-station that was affected by the July floods in Gloucestershire. I visited it in the days immediately following the floods and saw for myself the heroic efforts of the emergency services and the armed forces to protect the power station. That is one of the reasons that Pitt drew the lesson that he did in his interim report, and that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs made it clear that the Government have fully accepted all 15 urgent recommendations, including those from Pitt, that we take steps to ensure that such critical utility infrastructure is properly and better protected in future. That is different, however, from specifying a particular feature, such as flood risk, in the Bill, and singling out its consideration as a requirement in the production of national policy statements.

I should explain why the appraisal of sustainability, which the Committee has already discussed, and which will be required of every Secretary of State who produces a national policy statement, deals with the matter. Appraisals of sustainability are central to our consideration of future infrastructure needs and to our sustainable development objectives. The Bill contains the necessary provisions to ensure that national policy statements take into account environmental and sustainability considerations, including relevant documents such as PPS25 on the risk of flooding. We have also made it clear that national policy statements must integrate all the environmental, social and economic aspects of policy. Ministers will have to take all those issues into account when drawing up the statements, and that will include flood risk.

It might also interest the Committee that under clause 5(6), Ministers must

“give reasons for the policy set out in the statement.”

We can expect an explanation of the factors, which in some instances will include flooding, to be drawn out at that point. Finally, national policy statements will be subject to public consultation and scrutiny in this House. I am sure that the scrutiny in this House will ensure that all relevant aspects, including the risk of flooding, will be properly taken into account in the final versions of the national policy statements.

I do not accept that it is right to single out a specific feature in this way. We have given a clear commitment that the Secretary of State will have a duty to consider the issue of sustainability when producing a national policy statement. Therefore, I do not believe that the amendment advocated by the hon. Member for Beckenham is necessary to achieve the ends that she has in mind.

Jacqui Lait (Conservative, Beckenham)

I add our thanks to those people who worked so hard to ensure that that sub-station was not flooded last July. When I was the Member of Parliament for Hastings and Rye I spent the whole of one Christmas and new year on tenterhooks as to whether Rye was going to flood because we had some very heavy rain. I know exactly how nail-biting it can be to watch the waters rise. That is why I take such a personal interest in this issue.

I am grateful to the Minister for laying out his argument so clearly. I hope that it has been heard beyond this room. If there are any further questions, we might come back to the issue. However, on the basis of what the Minister has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Jacqui Lait (Conservative, Beckenham)

I beg to move amendment No. 181, in clause 5, page 3, line 8, at end insert—

‘(4A) The policy set out in a national policy statement may not—

(a) identify any location or site as suitable (or potentially suitable) or unsuitable for a specified description of development;

(b) identify any individual statutory undertaker or undertakers as appropriate persons to carry out a specified description of development.’.

Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 182, in clause 5, page 3, line 16, leave out paragraph (d).

Amendment No. 183, in clause 5, page 3, line 18, leave out paragraph (e).

New clause 3—Geographically-specified national policy statements—

‘(1) This section sets out the requirements for national policy statements which make particular reference to specific geographical areas under section 5(5)(d).

(2) Where a proposal for a national policy statement is made by the Secretary of State with implications for a specific geographical area, the Secretary of State shall commission and fund an assessment by the relevant local planning authority, or authorities, of—

(a) whether the proposal is consonant with the principles enumerated in the authority’s local development documents as defined in section 17 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004,

(b) the likely impact of the proposal on communities within the local authority area,

(c) whether the proposal meets with the approval of persons residing in the relevant local authority area, and

(d) any other matter which the relevant planning authority considers appropriate.

(3) A local authority area is within subsection (2) if any of the locations concerned is in the authority’s area, or a neighbouring authority’s area.

(4) A “proposal” in subsection (2) shall be defined as in section 7(3).’.

Jacqui Lait (Conservative, Beckenham)

We are motoring through quite nicely. The reason for this group of amendments is to tease out the confusion between national policy statements that are site-specific and those that are not. What will be the consequences of national policy statements that are site-specific? The Minister will be aware that in the statement on energy policy and nuclear power last week, the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform said:

“The NPS will need to be as site specific as it possibly can be in relation to possible future nuclear sites.”—[Official Report, 10 January 2008; Vol. 470, c. 529.]

On Second Reading, my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) made precisely that point on nuclear power stations. Most of us could indicate where in England and Wales the nuclear power stations will go and where they should go in Scotland. However, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon pointed out, the problem is that having a national policy statement that is site-specific is tantamount to giving planning permission. There are also provisions within the clause that, while not site-specific, could produce information that identifies sites or gives otherwise clear indications of where the Secretary of State expects development to be.

While we recognise that it is difficult not to be site-specific, we would prefer policy statements that are not site-specific because of the difficulty of implicit planning permission. I am intrigued that the Minister is so interested in that particular Secretary of State and hope that he will become Secretary of State some day. However, a national policy statement should be a statement of policy, not a statement of detail, in which the Minister and the Secretary of State specify where those sites will be. I am not entirely convinced that that is the best way forward as a principle.

John Healey (Labour, Wentworth)

The hon. Lady is right that I am interested. With regard to her example of nuclear power stations, is she saying that the Government should not identify sites that might be either suitable or unsuitable?

Jacqui Lait (Conservative, Beckenham)

While I understand that it will be exceedingly difficult to do so, particularly in relation to nuclear development—my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon might also have views on that—our view is that the national policy statement should be a statement of policy rather than specifics. I am not writing these things, but one could argue that nuclear power stations should be sited close to the sea without saying that that should be at Dungeness or Sizewell.

John Healey (Labour, Wentworth)

Will the hon. Lady explain how a policy statement for nuclear power stations or ports, for instance, without any specific reference to the location would assist either the process of assessing a major investment infrastructure application or the provision of the greater certainty and clarity for investment decisions, some of which will be very big, that is needed for the future support of such infrastructure in this country?

Jacqui Lait (Conservative, Beckenham)

It is interesting that we suddenly appear to be writing the Bill, but this is the Minister’s legislation.

John Healey (Labour, Wentworth)

You are trying to rewrite it.

Jacqui Lait (Conservative, Beckenham)

We are indeed, because most of the time we are trying to find out what the Minister means and what the thinking is. For instance, I would suggest that when a national policy statement is site-specific, that is in effect tantamount to giving planning permission. There are consequences that flow from that. I am trying to get the Minister to be forthcoming on whether he thinks it is correct that a national policy statement will, in effect, give planning permission for various developments, or whether a better way forward would be to lay out the terms and conditions for such developments and allow the contractors to come forward with their own site-specific proposals.

Most of the contractors are in the private sector, even though it is regulated. Highways, of course, are not. I suggest that it is entirely up to them to know where they want to develop. There could well be arguments about where a new port should go.

David Curry (Conservative, Skipton and Ripon)

Next to the sea, I think.

Jacqui Lait (Conservative, Beckenham)

If I may correct my right hon. Friend, one or two significant ports are slightly up river. It is possible that a nuclear power station could be built not next to the sea—[ Interruption. ]

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

Such as Trawsfynydd.

Jacqui Lait (Conservative, Beckenham)

Indeed, that has already happened.

John Healey (Labour, Wentworth)

Does the hon. Lady have anywhere in mind?

Jacqui Lait (Conservative, Beckenham)

Given that I am a supporter of nuclear power, do not tempt me down that route, but what about the Minister’s constituency? That would be true proof that he believes in nuclear power, and how clean and safe it is.

David Curry (Conservative, Skipton and Ripon)

We could have an incinerator as a compromise.

Jacqui Lait (Conservative, Beckenham)

I would even advocate an incinerator, because these days, with the right technology, they can be as clean and green, and as sensible a solution to a number of our waste problems. But let us not get diverted. I am grateful to the Chairman for allowing us to go down this route for a bit.

One can see, without the degree of hilarity that we just arrived at, that there are questions about how site-specific a national policy statement should be. I would like to hear the Minister’s response to the amendments so that we may gather whether he foresees difficulties if a policy statement is site-specific in its implied planning permission.

Dan Rogerson (Liberal Democrat, North Cornwall)

I wish to speak to new clause 3 in particular.

I think we all agree that there is a big problem. The hon. Lady tried valiantly to defend the idea that it might be possible to have a national policy statement for some sectors without getting into the business of site-specifics. However, I suspect that, were the Government to consult on the new generation of nuclear power stations, for example, and talked about the coast in general, a legitimate question from the public might be, “Are the Government considering prioritising existing sites over new ones?” As soon as that question is answered, we are into site-specifics.

David Curry (Conservative, Skipton and Ripon)

It might be possible for the Government to put forward a non-site-specific proposal in their statement, but I wonder how it could get through parliamentary scrutiny without becoming much more specific. Members of Parliament represent constituencies, and the one thing that they will want to know is whether it will be in their neck of the woods.

Dan Rogerson (Liberal Democrat, North Cornwall)

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention. We are obviously musing on the same matters, in particular with regard to amendment No. 181, which he has also tabled.

New clause 3 recognises that there may well be site-specific aspects to NPSs, but that those would be of huge concern to local people. I say “local people” because the Minister has talked about the consultation that will be undertaken at a national level on the NPS.

Once the site is identified, that will call into question the effect that it will have on a particular local community. I want to make extra provision for consultation through local authorities in the area, so that we have the best local debate possible on how a proposal might proceed. Therefore, when it comes to national consideration and detailed scrutiny of the NPS, all the information will be there for this House and anybody else who is examining it. Important local factors that could affect the introduction and operation of an NPS might come to light only if the views of local communities were considered in consultation.

We would all own up to the fact that even the best local authority reaches only some people when consulting on its local development framework—those who are very active in the community and who are aware that it is coming up. The best local authorities, which hold excellent roadshows and produce clear literature for people to respond to, still do not get to everybody.

When there is potential for a nationally significant scheme to come to an area, it will receive coverage. There could be huge anxiety in that area, and there ought to be a process in the Bill that allows the local authority, as the leading democratic organisation, to bring together that opinion and knowledge and ensure that it is fed into the process of compiling the NPS. Contingent on that is the need for resources to come with that for those local authorities that suddenly find themselves the beneficiary of being considered for a nationally important scheme through an NPS.

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman’s reasoning and he is on to a good thing. However, there could be a slight problem because we were advised in the evidence sessions that county councils will be expected to assist potential objectors. There could be a conflict in assisting in the implementation and development of a national policy statement, on the one hand, and being duty bound to assist objectors to a development, on the other.

Dan Rogerson (Liberal Democrat, North Cornwall)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for highlighting what might at first appear to be a potential conflict. New clause 3 seeks to establish a process to enable local authorities to bring opinion together, not to co-ordinate systematic objection, but to ensure that, along with national consultation and scrutiny, a local element is fed into the process. I hope that the Committee will be sympathetic to the new clause, which I think would improve matters when NPSs have site-specific allocations.

David Curry (Conservative, Skipton and Ripon)

I am beginning to think that the chairman of the IPC had better be a theologian because how many angels can get through the eye of a needle is likely to be one of the more pressing questions to come before him in the early stages.

I would have preferred national policy statements which end with a conclusion that certain infrastructure of national importance should be built at a certain place. I would not bother with the IPC at all because the key document in all of this will be the planning statement. However, we have decided to have an IPC. The issue now is where the interface lies between the planning statement and the practical decision to give planning permission. The problem is that the issues that will be subject to planning statements, by definition, are so big and are of such national importance that it becomes very difficult in practice to draw a distinction between a framework and a specific application for a particular site. The Government will have to try to tread that line. The Minister said that the framework document will be submitted to scrutiny outside and, particularly, inside Parliament. However, the only question that people will be interested in asking in the course of that scrutiny is, “Where?” It will be difficult for a Minister to appear before a Select Committee, whatever shape it takes—and he or she will appear before it—but the question will be, “Where do you have in mind?”

Nobody will be working from a clean sheet, because we all know that, in practice, there is a shortlist. We will know of only a handful of sites that are relevant to the siting of a new nuclear power station. Frankly, there is probably only one site relevant to the storage of nuclear waste, which would be such a controversial issue and subject to such detailed work that it would be almost impossible to see anything other than a site-specific conclusion at the end of any process. If it is going to be buried, it would be buried in Sellafield—that would almost certainly be the outcome.

On ports, we know which are nationally strategic, because the Bill includes size criteria that in themselves serve to define which ports may want to expand to create greater national capacity, although I accept that there may be a slightly more open agenda on other matters. To what extent, in practice, will a framework document in the circumstances I described lead to nothing more than an entirely duplicate application for planning permission? Will it lead to a scrutinisation of the planning statement that will, in practice, be almost entirely replicated in the planning permission process and IPC scrutiny?

I recognise that the issue is difficult. The Minister wishes to use the IPC to deal with issues of national importance, and I am extremely sympathetic to what he is seeking to achieve, but trying to maintain a distinction does not work. My hon. Friend is striving nobly to an end that is difficult to attain—it is like finding a manager who will make Newcastle United a decent football team once more. Equally, the Minister is drawing a distinction that is difficult in practice to sustain because the overlap is so enormous. As soon as we move away from the abstract to talk about specific sectors, we will almost immediately start to talk about places. Frankly, that is rightly part of the scrutiny process. In a sense, both the Minister and my hon. Friend are struggling to deliver something that is undeliverable because of the lack of distinctions.

John Healey (Labour, Wentworth)

The hon. Lady has dug something of a hole for herself. I would certainly be prepared to help her out if she wants to withdraw the amendment and I urge my hon. Friends to resist it.

Given that national policy statements are intended to provide the primary reference point for the IPC’s work, it is important that they provide a sufficient framework. The statements will also provide the framework for major investment decisions. Again, the greater the degree of clarity and certainty that we can properly include in national policy statements, the more helpful they will be and the more likely it is that that essential investment will be considered. I honestly cannot see how a national policy statement that serves the function we will require of it for the IPC, given the role that it will play in encouraging greater investment, can work for transport, rail and road networks, for which the location is intrinsic to the infrastructure. Such situations are different from those involving certain forms of electricity and power generation such as renewables, where location specificity simply is not as intrinsic to the policy statement and framework as seems sensible and natural to produce.

Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

I understand what the Minister is saying about certain types of operation where the national policy statement would, in effect, be location-specific or very close thereto, but will he deal with the point raised by my hon. Friend at the beginning? If a national policy statement states that we need x power stations of a certain kind and there are three possible locations, and three is what we need, to all intents and purposes, that is the planning permission. Once the national policy statement has said that and has identified a small number of sites, which by the nature of the operation cannot go anywhere else, planning permission is effectively being given. If that is the case, how does the Minister justify not giving those affected by the proposals exactly the same rights to consultation and participation as they would have had a separate application been made? I understand his logic and I am asking him to follow it through.

John Healey (Labour, Wentworth)

I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman and his support for the hon. Lady.

Jacqui Lait (Conservative, Beckenham)

We are a team.

John Healey (Labour, Wentworth)

Precisely so, and a good team. I am going to come on to that.

I am dealing with the contention that somehow we can have national policy statements that prescribe specific locations. I simply do not understand how that can make sense. For example, if a national policy statement on aviation determined, through the process of preparing and designating it, that a third runway was required at Heathrow, it is difficult to see how one could set out the policy statement without specifying that that third runway was needed at Heathrow. Similarly, it is difficult to see how a national policy statement that determined that it is important to expand the road capacity from A to B could be set out if it did not actually say that. At the heart of the hon. Lady’s argument is a real problem for the concept of a national policy statement, which she says she strongly supports. She says it would be a good innovation.

Let me try to deal with the question of whether any site-specific or locational references would be tantamount to giving planning permission or pre-empting the consideration of permission of an application. The same sort of territory concerned the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon. As I have tried to explain, it is not tantamount to planning permission; it is not pre-empting the proper consideration of any application. A site-specific national policy statement would provide the framework for examination by the IPC, but it would not prejudge the decisions that the IPC would be required to make. By identifying particularly suitable or likely suitable sites or, indeed, unsuitable sites, it will reduce the debate about suitability and those associated issues at a local level as part of the application process. In many ways it will help to achieve what we have set out to do, which is to ensure that those big debates about need, policy and other such considerations are not repeated whenever an application is considered in the planning process. Again, that is broadly welcomed as a feature of what we are trying to do.

David Jones (Conservative, Clwyd West)

The Minister says that the national policy statement would reduce the debate about suitability. Would it not eliminate the debate about suitability? Therefore, the inquiry that would be conducted by the IPC would be nothing more than going through the motions; it would be a ritual dance that had only one conclusion.

John Healey (Labour, Wentworth)

No. The IPC would still need to examine the details of an application. It could—I am sure that it will—in some cases reject an application on a particular site or it could set conditions on an application to mitigate the effects on a site.

Jacqui Lait (Conservative, Beckenham)

I thought I had a clear picture of what the Minister was expecting of the interchange between the NPS and the IPC but I am again confused. He said that the IPC would be able to turn down planning applications. Would the IPC be able to turn down a third runway at Heathrow? Or would the fact that that project was specified in the national policy statement mean that all the IPC could do in response to local residents’ complaints would be to set conditions, which would be such that the third runway would not be viable? Would it be able to do that?

John Healey (Labour, Wentworth)

The short answer is yes. The IPC could turn down, or set conditions, on any application; that is central to the scope of its remit and the role that we wish it to play.

Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

The Minister has been very helpful. I accept that I was wrong to say that what is proposed would be tantamount to planning permission in certain circumstances. To take the Heathrow analogy, a specific application for a third runway could be turned down despite the fact that the NPS says that there should be a third runway. There would thus be one of two situations. First, the unelected IPC might overturn the NPS, which has been the subject of democratic parliamentary scrutiny. Most people would regard that as unconscionable and most of those who think that it speeds up the planning system would see it as self-defeating. Secondly, the application might be turned down because detail or design conditions are attached. In that event, perhaps I should have said that a site-specific national policy statement is tantamount to outline planning permission. It would surely be that at the very least.

John Healey (Labour, Wentworth)

I thought that what I had said was pretty clear and unsurprising. Of course, the IPC could turn down an application if it had grounds to do so.

David Curry (Conservative, Skipton and Ripon)

In the Minister’s first remarks on this group of amendments, he said that the NPS was the “primary reference point” for the IPC. If it is a primary reference point for the commission, I do not see how the commission can turn down an application based on a named project in the NPS. But if it is a primary reference point for people putting in applications that is certainly a different matter.

John Healey (Labour, Wentworth)

I am surprised that the Committee seems to be making rather a meal of this proposal. Of course the commission could turn down an application for a development on a site, despite it being deemed a suitable site for a particular development. The application itself may be deemed unsuitable and the IPC could perfectly well turn down that application—or set conditions on it—if it felt it had the grounds to do so.

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

On that point, given that the national policy statement would have been through all kinds of scrutiny, including flood risk assessment, what possible grounds could there be for the IPC to turn it down?

John Healey (Labour, Wentworth)

The IPC could turn the application down if it felt that it was not a suitable application or development for that site or if the national benefits set out in the national policy statement were outweighed by some of the local disbenefits or problems with particular applications. In all honesty, I think that hon. Members recognise that there are limits to how specific I can be when asked to suggest how an IPC that we have not yet set up might hypothetically consider, in general terms, applications that have not yet been submitted, within a policy framework that we are still discussing how to produce and that is not yet in place.

Several hon. Membersrose—

John Healey (Labour, Wentworth)

I should give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland.

Jamie Reed (Labour, Copeland)

I am grateful for the clarity that the Minister has brought to the role of the IPC and to the powers that it will have. The hon. Member for North Cornwall mentioned the democratic deficit with regard to the IPC and national policy statements. Notwithstanding the fact that I appreciate the scrutiny that the Committee is trying to apply to that, could the Minister explain for the benefit of the Committee what the substantive difference would be between the IPC taking the decision under these new proposals and a judge taking a decision at a public inquiry now?

John Healey (Labour, Wentworth)

My hon. Friend has made a good point and draws me on to the areas of concern that the hon. Member for North Cornwall raised on democracy and consultation. His general argument is right: it is critical that those in any location who might be affected by a potential development should be properly consulted. He is right that they need to be properly informed and to understand the possible implications of any national policy statements that include specific locations within their draft terms. It is important that they also have the chance to give their views. That is why we have clause 7(5) in particular and why clause 8 requires the Secretary of State to consult with local authorities when any aspect of a national policy statement draft includes specific locations.

David Jones (Conservative, Clwyd West)

I am grateful to the Minister, who is being extremely generous. Does he agree that if the IPC were conducting an inquiry with reference to an NPS that referred to a specific location, it would be virtually impossible for the IPC to turn down the application on the grounds of locational suitability? It would be a golden thread running through the inquiry. Whatever anyone else might say about the merits of the application, the question of its location would be a touchstone and could not be challenged.

John Healey (Labour, Wentworth)

An important part of the process proposed in the Bill is that there should be the scope within national policy statements to identify locations that the Government, after consultation, parliamentary scrutiny, the production and finalising of the national policy statement and everything that should be taken into account in that assessment, judge to be suitable for a particular type of development. Locations might also be found to be unsuitable. That will inevitably be, and is designed to be, an important framework and starting point for the IPC in considering applications.

The hon. Member for Clwyd, West makes a reasonable point, which is similar, but in slightly longer terms, to the one I made earlier. The IPC’s consideration of the suitability or unsuitability of a site is likely to be shorter if that matter is already part of a national policy statement. However, that is not equivalent to there being an automatic green light for any application that may come forward for such a site, nor is it tantamount to saying that the IPC cannot turn down an application for a site that has been deemed suitable in a national policy statement.

To return to the concern over consultation, there will be an opportunity to consider issues specific to an application at the local stage in relation to site layout, siting, access and the environmental impact. Again, a central feature of the proposals is that in certain national policy statements, the Secretary of State will have the discretion to identify particular locations as likely to be suitable or unsuitable for the infrastructure that they have in mind, taking into account consultation and parliamentary scrutiny.

David Curry (Conservative, Skipton and Ripon)

I am intrigued by the designation of unsuitability. No doubt 99.9 per cent. of the UK is unsuitable for the development of nuclear power stations and, by definition, ports. Is it not sufficient to designate what is suitable, given the purpose of a policy statement? Areas that are unsuitable will take up pages and pages with entirely superfluous information.

John Healey (Labour, Wentworth)

What we are discussing is not a requirement to identify suitable or unsuitable locations, but the scope to do so when it is appropriate in a national policy statement. It may or may not be appropriate to identify unsuitable locations. I can imagine, as I am sure the right hon. Gentleman can, that there would be a strong interest during consultation and parliamentary scrutiny in a confirmation that certain locations are unsuitable for developments in some national policy statements. All we propose in the Bill is that the Secretary of State should have the scope to identify locations that are likely to be suitable and, on the other hand, to decide that it seems sensible to identify locations that would be unsuitable.

Amendments Nos. 181 to 183 would prevent the identification of a statutory undertaker as being appropriate to carry out work. Under clause 5(5)(e), the Secretary of State can identify one or more organisations, as appropriate, to carry out a specific type of development. In certain cases only certain developers such as the Highways Agency or Network Rail will be in a position to provide the sort of infrastructure that a national policy statement covers. We are simply allowing organisations in such circumstances to be identified, where appropriate.

I have dealt with new clause 3 to the extent that there are duties on the Secretary of State to consult when there is a location-specific element in a national policy statement. Quite honestly, we already expect local authorities to represent their communities and, by and large, even Liberal Democrat councils do so pretty effectively. I do not think that this provision is needed to force them to do so. It is certainly not needed to set out how they should do it. The hon. Member for North Cornwall has not really made his case for the new clause. I hope that he will not press it to a Division, because I would have to ask my hon. Friends to resist it.

Dan Rogerson (Liberal Democrat, North Cornwall)

I listened with interest as the Minister set out where he feels there are already provisions in the Bill that would allow local communities to have a thorough opportunity to give their view when an NPS was being constructed with site-specific locations contained therein. He pointed in the direction of clause 7(5), which talks about the Secretary of State ensuring that appropriate steps are taken to publicise the proposal. That comes back to the point that I was trying to make in my earlier remarks about a bit of publicity that will reach perhaps one group of people who are quite often engaged with these sorts of things.

We could be talking about a very significant development that will affect an area for many years to come. If it is a facility that has a lifespan to it, once it is established we may well find that in 50 years’ time when it comes to be replaced there will already be a brownfield site. We could be talking about sites that will have some form of facility on them virtually in perpetuity. To say that the Secretary of State will publicise this, is not good enough.

John Healey (Labour, Wentworth)

Before the hon. Gentleman continues any further, could I urge him to look at clause 7(5) and clause 8(1)? I mentioned both and if he looks at the interplay between the two, his understandable concerns will be met.

Dan Rogerson (Liberal Democrat, North Cornwall)

I have looked at those subsections because the Minister mentioned them. I can see how he might feel that they would be sufficient, but I am keen to see something in the Bill that says that there will be significant local consultation in any such area that has been identified, and that the resources to carry that out would come from the centre and would not fall as a burden on local authorities.

Going back to what my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell) said when the White Paper was introduced, the key question when our party was considering the IPC was whether it would be able to say no. Notwithstanding the Minister’s statement that in certain circumstances it might well say no, there is no great confidence across the country that once something is in an NPS and set in tablets of stone, and has gone through scrutiny in this place and elsewhere, the IPC will be able to overturn it on a few technicalities. The most important part of the process for such a locality will be at the NPS-setting stage. It is therefore my intention to press the new clause to a vote. I thank the Minister for his comments, but I am not convinced that what is in the Bill at the moment is good enough.

Jacqui Lait (Conservative, Beckenham)

I have a great deal of sympathy with what the hon. Member for North Cornwall has said. In a sense it is all part of this consultation issue, on which the Government have made some progress since the White Paper but not enough to ensure that people have the right to be heard.

John Healey (Labour, Wentworth)

You are going to support him?

Jacqui Lait (Conservative, Beckenham)

Let us wait and see. I have a great deal of sympathy and it is highly possible that he will have a great deal of sympathy with our three amendments and we could come to an arrangement. Because we were conscious of the difficulties that could arise from site specificity and the implication that a site-specific national planning policy would give to sites, we tabled what I thought were three fairly innocuous-looking amendments to tease out a worthwhile and necessary debate. I certainly did not expect the complications and implications that have emerged in our discussions.

I am grateful to the Minister for being so clear, open and candid, but I am even more confused than when we started. Apart from anything else, and while wishing to stay in order, we have a wonderful view of the IPC being able to refuse or to make very difficult a planning application for something in the national policy statement that has been agreed by the House and through general consultation. Those on the IPC would not only then be taking on Parliament, but the Secretary of State and the Department to which they are responsible for both their employment and their pay and rations. It would be a brave commissioner who would do so, particularly as, under paragraph 4(2)(c) of schedule 1:

“The Secretary of State may remove a person from office as the chair, or as a deputy or other Commissioner, if the Secretary of State is satisfied that...the person is otherwise unfit to perform the duties of the office.”

I would imagine that many Secretaries of State might throw a real wobbly and decide that a commissioner was unfit for office. That does not reflect terribly well on the Secretary of State.

John Healey (Labour, Wentworth)

When we debate schedule 2 at a later stage, the hon. Lady might want to make those rather unworthy points again, but she should understand clearly that the power in that schedule could not possibly be exercised in those circumstances by any Secretary of State.

Jacqui Lait (Conservative, Beckenham)

I am sure that those people who will volunteer to be commissioners will bear that comment in mind when they are approaching employment, but it is not beyond the bounds of possibility. Because of the information that the Minister has given us, under some fairly close questioning, I will invite my hon. Friends to press the amendment to a vote.

Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central)

For the benefit of the Committee, a vote on new clause 3 will come later in the proceedings, when we come to the new clauses. The current question relates to amendment No. 181.

Jacqui Lait (Conservative, Beckenham)

We have had a good discussion on the clause, but one thing that always concerns me, as someone who was scarred by the experience of the Child Support Agency, is that the minute a policy is agreed on in the House, one looks immediately for the difficulties that will emerge. We have gone through a number of those that we have foreseen, but I still think that the clause, although it is acceptable in principle, has some problems that we will need to tease out still further.

We have tried by amendment to clarify and tighten up a number of the issues involved in the production of these statements, because we have grave concerns about the detail and practice, which we will undoubtedly come back to in debates about subsequent clauses.

I remain concerned about the sheer number of these national policy statements that we could be faced with. It is not just we in Parliament who could be faced with them but, of course, the British public, because, as the hon. Member for North Cornwall made clear, we should not just consult the usual suspects about these national policy statements. We must ensure that we engage with a much wider public. It is highly possible, indeed likely, that, because Parliament will be involved in the scrutiny in whatever form that takes, there will be a greater interest than there would normally be when the Department consults. Certainly, if there are site-specific policy statements, I would expect a huge level of interest, particularly if people feel that their peace of mind and their environment are going to be disturbed.

Therefore, we could face a situation, as I have already said, of parliamentary constipation as we try to get these national policy statements through the House so that everybody knows the direction in which they are going, including the developers and the communities in which these developments will be sited.

Will the Minister give us some idea of the number of policy statements that he expects? For instance, yesterday I heard that we were going to have one on fossil fuels, one on nuclear energy and one on renewables; that is three statements from just one Department on one subject. We could go on for ever with these statements. How many will we have on transport? Will there be statements on ports and ancillary roads, roads, rail and air? We could go on for ever. If the Minister can give me a total, I will be happy.

John Healey (Labour, Wentworth)

I do not want to detain the Committee or repeat myself too often. I have said at least twice during the course of these proceedings, including once already today, that, as the hon. Lady will see if she looks at the schedule published with the statements on 27 November, we expect about a dozen national policy statements in total.

Jacqui Lait (Conservative, Beckenham)

A dozen at the moment—that is my reaction to that statement, I am afraid. Every time, we seem to get another angle that implies another national policy statement. I am sure that the Minister wishes and hopes that he will only have to deal with a dozen. Even if there are only a dozen national policy statements, getting the British public and Parliament to deal with them will cause huge congestion in the consultation system, however it is developed. That is before we get into any other areas of continuous review.

However, let us accept that we only have a dozen and let us hope that the fears that we have raised about this clause do not come into play. I still wish that the Government would accept and take on board our points to try to make these national policy statements a much more effective mechanism than I currently believe that they will be under the Bill. Although I support the clause and shall not vote against it, I hope that the Minister will accept that the mechanism is not yet perfect and that there is a way to go.

Dan Rogerson (Liberal Democrat, North Cornwall)

We have heard several times how much consensus there is in this place and out in the real world on the idea that national policy statements are a sensible way forward. Given how supportive we are of the concept, I was hoping that the Minister would be a little more generous about getting it right. He should listen to what hon. Members on both sides of the Committee said about scrutiny—we had a long debate about that—and the question of site specificity, as he called it. I am disappointed, therefore, that he has not said that he will change things much in the direction that the rest of the Committee would like to see.

Having said that, my support for national policy statements as a concept is on record, so I shall not oppose the clause. However, I would hope that, as the Bill progresses, the Minister and his team will consider and take on board some of the measures proposed in the other groups of amendments that we have debated.

John Healey (Labour, Wentworth)

Hon. Members are right: we have had a thorough debate on some important issues, not only on this clause, but on previous, linked measures. Clause 5 is an important part of the Bill. It sets out the definition of a national policy statement and what is required of Governments when they produce the statements. NPSs are central to the proposed new system. They will set the strategic policy framework within which the IPC will consider applications for major investments and major infrastructure. National policy statements do, indeed, have broad support from a range of interests. I am glad that they have all-party support.

Clause 6

Jacqui Lait (Conservative, Beckenham)

I beg to move amendment No. 185, in clause 6, page 3, line 31, at beginning insert—

‘(A1) The Secretary of State shall consider continuously whether each national policy statement should be reviewed.

(A2) The Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament and publish each year a report on the national policy statements which have been designated and whether a review is being carried out or will be carried out.’.

Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 7, in clause 6, page 3, line 31, after ‘must’, insert ‘continuously’.

No. 73, in clause 6, page 3, line 31, leave out from ‘statement’ to end of line 32 and insert ‘annually and publish a report’.

No. 8, in clause 6, page 3, line 31, leave out from ‘statement’ to end of line 32.

No. 74, in clause 10, page 5, line 24, at end add—

‘(4) The Secretary of State must report on the progress of the review at 28 day intervals.’.

Jacqui Lait (Conservative, Beckenham)

We are moving on to some of the more arcane detail of bringing national policy statements into being. The clause deals with the review of the statements. The amendments would ensure that once a national policy statement is in place, it is fit for purpose whenever a new planning application emerges. Subsection 6(1) bothers me because it states:

“The Secretary of State must review each national policy statement whenever the Secretary of State thinks it appropriate to do so.”

I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about this. The problem is that

“whenever...appropriate to do so”

could be, and is likely to be, a reaction to a planning application. Any review process will, of necessity, take time. A continuous review and an annual report, which we are proposing, would allow the NPS to be always up to date.

Having said that, I should not like the Minister to think that we expect legions of civil servants to sit and read national policy statements and all the technical papers and advice involved in major infrastructure projects on a daily basis, but there ought to be a mechanism whereby technical literature and developments are under continuous review. That way, as soon as there is a new development that could have a bearing on an NPS, it would be flagged up to the Secretary of State and the review could begin at that stage rather than later.

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

I am listening to the hon. Lady and agree about the wording of the clause. I must say that the drafting is rather strange—I have not seen anything quite as strange as this for some time. [Interruption.] I read Private Eye and various other things.

The clause states:

“The Secretary of State must review each national policy statement whenever the Secretary of State thinks it appropriate to do so.”

We are always being told about words that are otiose. Surely the clause should state that the Secretary of State must review each NPS “periodically or from time to time”.

Jacqui Lait (Conservative, Beckenham)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that and I have some sympathy with him. I gave up reading Private Eye some years ago. Perhaps I should read it more often.

The problem with including a reference to a time scale as opposed to the process being continuous is that we never know when a technological development may emerge. If “from time to time” is defined as, say, once a year, given the technological fervour in areas such as waste disposal, that review may come after the technological development and the desire for an infrastructure contractor to build a new facility.

For example—it may not be entirely appropriate, but because it is current it comes immediately to mind—E.ON has made a planning application for a carbon capture, coal-fired power station at Kingsnorth as a response to a Treasury competition to design carbon capture facilities. Good on the Treasury for encouraging that research; I do not have any problem with it as long as it does not cost us any money—I put that in before I am accused of committing us to vast expenditure.

It is highly possible that a company would wish to make a planning application for a carbon capture power station but the NPS is not sufficiently up to date to allow the IPC to give it planning permission. That is why I have a problem with specifying a time scale and why I think that these matters should be kept under continuous review.

As I said, I do not suggest that we have a whole section, either in the Department for Communities and Local Government or anywhere else, reviewing the literature; it is not that difficult these days, especially with the internet. We all want clean technologies, sustainable development and better infrastructure, but in order to get innovative new ideas tried, tested and out into the public domain, it is better to keep things under continuous review. That is preferable to the Secretary of State suddenly waking up one Tuesday morning before coming in for questions and saying, “Wouldn’t it be a good idea to look at the NPS for waste?” That is not a sufficiently robust system, but it is what will pertain under clause 6(1) as drafted. Heaven knows, in a couple of years we will have a new Secretary of State. With the best will in the world, reviewing NPS will not be at the forefront of any Secretary of State’s mind as he or she tries to deal with the mess that is left by this Government. [Interruption.] We are worrying about it and believe me, we need to worry.

If there is somebody in the Department whose remit it is to keep an eye on technological and other developments in these sectors, they can be flagged up continuously and that will allow the market to develop for the infrastructure projects that we want.

Dan Rogerson (Liberal Democrat, North Cornwall)

I, too, was somewhat alarmed by the concept of

“whenever the Secretary of State thinks it appropriate to do so.”

I understand why that would not be a cause for concern within the Department, but it might be a concern in the House. However, I will not go over the hon. Lady’s argument as we seem to be making progress.

I have a concern about NPSs being reviewed continuously. If an NPS is to mean something to people, they have to know that it is in place for a certain period. Amendment No. 73 suggests that they should be reviewed annually. That might be too short a period. However, if they are continuously being reviewed, that could call into question the whole purpose of having them because it could affect people’s confidence that they can submit an application in line with an NPS.

Jacqui Lait (Conservative, Beckenham)

I am trying to make the NPS the servant of technology rather than technology the servant of the NPS.

Dan Rogerson (Liberal Democrat, North Cornwall)

I thank the hon. Lady for that point of clarification. My feeling was that we should put a time limit on the NPS and my suggestion was to review it annually. Amendment No. 73 is a probing amendment.

Amendment No. 74 is on the related issue of an NPS being suspended. If something comes to light, as is set out in clause 10, which leads the Secretary of State to feel that an NPS should be suspended, it is not a trifling matter. There might be applications in the pipeline on which a great deal of expense and community anticipation are hanging. As the rest of the Bill seems to be quite fond of a period of 28 days for everybody else to conform to, I thought that the Secretary of State should have to answer after 28 days as to why a suspension remains in place. It might be slightly mischievous of me, but I felt that it would be useful for the Minister to clarify in what circumstances he envisages an NPS being suspended, how rare that might be and how soon it would be back in place or an amended NPS brought to the House for consideration. This issue is important because crucial applications could be before the IPC in that time.

David Jones (Conservative, Clwyd West)

I support amendment No. 185. I also want to echo the point made by the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy. We learned our law within 25 miles of each other and I share his bemusement at the expression

“whenever the Secretary of State thinks it appropriate to do so.”

I think that what is intended in the clause is probably very similar to what my hon. Friend intends in the amendment—in other words, the NPS should not be regarded as being cast in tablets of stone, but as being capable of development. The point is that things move forwards, especially technology. I am concerned that if statements are not kept under review, an application for development could be rejected because of a national policy statement that was developed on the basis of an old technology and does not accommodate the new technology.

It was not so long ago that the Government regarded nuclear power as an unattractive and unpalatable option. Now it is regarded as the solution to all our electricity generation problems. If the statement that it is an unpalatable option had been in the form of an NPS, it would not have been possible for a new developer to come forward with an application for a new nuclear power station, notwithstanding the fact that nuclear technology and nuclear waste disposal technology have moved on apace in recent years.

What the Government are seeking to achieve is very similar to what my hon. Friend is seeking to achieve. However, she puts it rather better, so I suggest that the Minister accepts the amendment.

Clive Betts (Labour, Sheffield, Attercliffe)

On amendments Nos. 93, 94 and 95, I am sure that my hon. Friend will be relieved to know that I do not intend to address each in turn at great length—

Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central)

Order. The hon. Gentleman refers to amendments that we are not considering. We are on amendments Nos. 185, 7, 73, 8 and 74. His amendments are to the next clause.

John Healey (Labour, Wentworth)

I sense a mood in the Committee to make progress.

Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central)

I wish I did.

John Healey (Labour, Wentworth)

I sense a mood, but do not see the evidence, Mr. Illsley, so I shall be brief.

I am not sure that the hon. Lady’s proposition is practical, but am sure that it is not sensible. The central question is why review when a review is not necessary. Surely, the time to review a national policy statement is when the relevant circumstances have changed, rather than to be required somehow to do so continually or when circumstances have not changed. As she rightly pointed out in her example, one circumstance that might allow for a review would be a significant development of technology.

Dan Rogerson (Liberal Democrat, North Cornwall)

Will the Minister give way?

John Healey (Labour, Wentworth)

I think I shall finish my sentence and point first.

A development of science might be another example. For instance, if better science and analysis demonstrated that the environmental effects of a particular type of renewable technology were not as good as had been thought, that might change the substance and circumstances of an element of the national policy statement and suggest the need for review. To simply review for review’s sake or when there has been no significant change in circumstances is not a practical or sensible proposition.

Dan Rogerson (Liberal Democrat, North Cornwall)

At the risk of getting into Sir Humphrey territory of reviewing reviews and announcing the review of the review, how will we know that a review is necessary unless a review has taken place? The Minister said that we will not conduct a review unless circumstances have changed. How will the Secretary of State be aware when significant circumstances have changed without having some sort of eye on what is happening in the sector and with applications?

John Healey (Labour, Wentworth)

The Secretary of State will have to consider from time to time whether a review is necessary. It is not only the Secretary of State, however, who is in a position to make a judgment on whether circumstances have changed to the extent that a review is necessary. Clause 12 gives any interested party the specific right to challenge the Secretary of State if they believe that those circumstances have changed and a review is necessary but the Secretary of State is not going to have one.

Mrs. Lait rose—

John Healey (Labour, Wentworth)

The Bill, therefore, provides the framework for dealing with precisely the sort of concerns that the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Clwyd, West are right to anticipate. However, her amendments are not the answer to their concerns.

David Jones (Conservative, Clwyd West)

Is not the problem with the subsection as drafted, however, that it is a strange mix of the mandatory and the discretionary? There is a positive duty on the Secretary of State to review national policy, but only when he feels that his state of digestion impels him to think about it. Frankly, ought not it to be mandatory all the way through? Currently, we have this strange compulsion, but only when the Secretary of State feels it necessary. Surely, it should be a question of periodic review. There need not necessarily be continuous reviews, but there certainly should be something that an aggrieved person can latch on to so that they can say, “Well, you should have reviewed it at that particular point but did not.”

John Healey (Labour, Wentworth)

Clause 12 is there precisely for an aggrieved person to, in the hon. Gentleman’s words, latch on to, but why review periodically when there is nothing to review? In the end, someone will have to make a judgment about initiating that review process. The national policy statements are produced as the responsibility of the Secretary of State, and it is appropriate that that responsibility and initiative lies with the Secretary of State. It is also appropriate for this House to take a view if the Secretary of State seems reluctant to have a review when there appears to be a change of circumstances that would warrant it. Any interested party could latch on, to use the hon. Gentleman’s words again, through the rights under clause 12 to impel or challenge precisely that process.

Several hon. Members rose—

John Healey (Labour, Wentworth)

I shall give way to the hon. Member for Beckenham because she tried to intervene before. Then, if necessary, I will give way to others.

Jacqui Lait (Conservative, Beckenham)

I hope that I am about to offer the Minister a solution to the problem.

English is a glorious and flexible language, and I do not have any problem with it becoming the international language. However, it is because of its very flexibility that I suspect we are using the word “review” in two distinct senses. I am using the word in the sense of keeping up to date—keeping a review of the technological and scientific literature. I suspect, if I may put words into the Minister’s mouth, that he is using the word in the more formal sense of setting out on a review of the NPS, with all the consultation that is required.

If we are agreed that we are using the word in slightly different senses, I am sure that we can come up with a wording that will both answer the Opposition’s concerns and deal with the Minister’s concern about the formal side of the review process.

John Healey (Labour, Wentworth)

I think that the hon. Lady is being half-helpful. Let me start with the good news. On the positive side, having spent five years in the Treasury, we did, indeed, use the word “review” often in the sense that she is suggesting. We, as a Government, keep all taxation policy constantly under review, which I think is the meaning that she intends. Clearly, in the context of the Bill and of potential revisions to national policy statements that have gone through the sort of formal process that we discussed under the previous clause, “review” has a different import.

Given that distinction, the hon. Lady must accept that it does not make sense to have a continual, or even a periodic, process of review. It makes sense to have a review when the circumstances that would suggest that it is necessary have changed. I do not think that it is necessary to try somehow to write into primary legislation an expectation or obligation that a Secretary of State would keep a close eye on all developments relevant to his or her policy area, including on national policy statements. It is part and parcel of the job that we do as Ministers, but, ultimately, as I have said, if a Secretary of State is failing to do that and is failing, therefore, to have the sort of formal review—let us call it that, although it is not the technical term used here—that either an interested party or Parliament might think the Secretary of State should have, there is scope to challenge that, and it would be appropriate to do so.

The Bill gets the balance right between a framework that can provide a degree of certainty for potential investors looking at major infrastructure options, and a degree of certainty about the framework within which the IPC works, against an expectation that they will be reviewed and revised when appropriate and when circumstances change.

I hope, given the mood in the Committee, that we can move on fairly swiftly, because there are substantial items still to discuss.

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

I do not agree with the Minister that the words “from time to time” would necessarily trigger a wasteful review. It would simply mean that the Minister would from time to time have to review. It does not mean that suddenly the doors would be opened to a review if it was not necessary. Quite the reverse.

I now understand why the wording,

“whenever the Secretary of State thinks it is appropriate to do so”,

has been included in clause 6—it is to open up the possibility of a legal challenge under clause 12. If the Secretary of State takes a conscious decision whether it is appropriate or not to undertake a review, that is challengeable under clause 12. I think that that is the reason for the rather extravagant wording.

John Healey (Labour, Wentworth)

I am not sure whether the wording is extravagant. However, the purpose of clause 12—let us say linked to clause 6, just to remain in order here—is to give an explicit right and scope for people to challenge the Secretary of State in conducting or discharging his or her duties under this Bill, whether that is to do with the production of a national policy statement, or a review, or a failure to review when circumstances warrant it.

I hope that that statement is helpful to the Committee and I hope that we can move on.

Jacqui Lait (Conservative, Beckenham)

Given that the Minister and Conservative Members have been half-helpful to one another, I intend to withdraw the amendment—albeit on the grounds that we may well return to the issue—because the Minister has probably given us the answer that we need, which is the difference between review and revision. However, we may well come back to this in subsequent proceedings.

Dan Rogerson (Liberal Democrat, North Cornwall)

I am grateful to the Minister for his comments. However, I would still be grateful if he can provide any clarification on reporting back in the period when an NPS is suspended, so that people have an indication of what is likely to happen. That would be important to applications that are going on, and so on. I do not know whether he has anything to say on that.

John Healey (Labour, Wentworth)

I will try to be brief and helpful at the same time. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman might want to return to this issue in more detail when we debate clause 98.

Dan Rogerson (Liberal Democrat, North Cornwall)

On that basis, I am happy not press my amendments to a Division.

Jacqui Lait (Conservative, Beckenham)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 7

Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

I beg to move amendment No. 186, in clause 7, page 4, line 9, at end insert—

‘(1A) The Secretary of State shall provide for early public participation, when all options are open and effective public participation can take place, within a transparent and fair framework.’.

Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 90, in clause 7, page 4, line 10, leave out first ‘such’.

Amendment No. 91, in clause 7, page 4, line 10, leave out second ‘such’.

Amendment No. 92, in clause 7, page 4, line 11, leave out—

‘as the Secretary of State thinks appropriate’.

Amendment No. 93, in clause 7, page 4, line 13, leave out ‘subsections (4) and (5)’ and insert ‘subsection (4)’.

Amendment No. 187, in clause 7, page 4, line 13, leave out ‘subsections (4) and (5)’ and insert—

‘the rest of this section’.

Amendment No. 244, in clause 7, page 4, line 13, leave out ‘and (5)’ and insert ‘(4A), (4B) and (5)’.

Amendment No. 188, in clause 7, page 4, line 13, at end insert—

‘(2A) The consultation period shall not be less than 12 weeks.

(2B) The publicity arrangements shall include advertisement in one or more national newspapers and the Gazette, placing the proposal and relevant supporting material on the Secretary of State’s website and giving notice to Parliament.’.

Amendment No. 94, in clause 7, page 4, line 14, at end insert—

‘(za) options seriously entertained by the Secretary of State as contributing to a draft or amended statement for the purposes of this Act.’.

Amendment No. 189, in clause 7, page 4, line 19, at end insert—

‘(4A) If the national policy statement relates, in whole or part, to England the Secretary of State shall consult Natural England, the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England, the Environment Agency and the Local Government Association.

(4B) If the national policy statement relates, in whole or part, to Scotland, the Secretary of State shall consult the Scottish Executive, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, Scottish Natural Heritage and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities.

(4C) If the national policy statement relates, in whole or part, to Wales, the Secretary of State shall consult the Welsh Assembly Government, the Environment Agency, the Countryside Council for Wales and the Welsh Local Government Association.’.

Amendment No. 245, in clause 7, page 4, line 19, at end insert—

‘(4A) The public shall have a minimum of 13 weeks from the publication of notice of the Secretary of State’s intentions to make representations upon the proposal.

(4B) The draft of the proposal shall be accompanied by an Environmental Report under the Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes directive and, if necessary, a draft Appropriate Assessment under the Habitats Directive.’

Amendment No. 95, in clause 7, page 4, line 20, leave out subsection (5).

Amendment No. 55, in clause 7, page 4, line 23, at end insert—

‘which must include publicising the consultation in formats accessible to people with disabilities.’.

Amendment No. 190, in clause 7, page 4, line 23, at end insert—

‘(5A) The publicity to be taken under subsection (5) shall include advertisement in a newspaper circulating in the locality, the display of one or more site notices at the location and placing copies of the proposal and relevant supporting material for inspection by the public at one or more places in or convenient to the location.’.

Amendment No. 191, in clause 7, page 4, line 23, at end insert—

‘(5B) If subsection (5) applies, any authority required to be consulted under section 8 shall also be consulted on the proposal.

(5C) If subsection (5) applies, the Secretary of State shall consult any parish or town council (if in England) or any community council (if in Wales) whose area includes the location or is within 10 miles of the location.’.

Amendment No. 246, in clause 7, page 4, line 25, at end add ‘with or without modifications’.

Amendment No. 160, in clause 7, page 4, line 25, at end add—

‘(7) Where a national policy statement refers to a geographically specific part of the country, the Secretary of State must, in arranging publicity under subsection (2), arrange for publicity to be made available in at least two local newspapers in the relevant area, where published.’.

Amendment No. 247, in clause 7, page 4, line 25, at end add—

‘(7) The Secretary of State shall give reasons for designating a statement as a national policy statement, including his reasons for not following any representations made.’.

Clause stand part.

Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central)

I call Jacqui Lait—sorry, Robert Neill.

Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

We thought that we would use our substitution, Mr. Illsley. What I can promise is that I will try not to use the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham to get in a football joke while she is gone.

I want to assure you, Mr. Illsley, that although the number of amendments is almost as great as the number of goals that West Ham would normally expect to score in the course of a season—self-deprecation is, of course, very important—those amendments largely hang together and the concepts behind them are fairly straightforward, so I will not need to be terribly long.

This group of amendments is about strengthening the consultation and publicity elements of the Bill. It follows on in large measure from some of the evidence that we heard from a range of witnesses during the oral evidence sessions. I hope that the Minister will accept that the amendments are designed to strengthen and improve the Bill; they are not designed to be obstructive.

Coming back to our starting point in relation to the national policy statements, the underlying rationale of the amendments is that, because of the importance of the statements and their potential impact not only on the general public good but on individual communities and individuals, it is crucial that certain minimum standards of publicity and consultation should be set out in the Bill. In our view, not only is that morally right but it is politically right. For reasons that we gave in earlier debates, that would make it more likely that they will command public acceptance and legitimacy. It is also practically right, because it would make it less likely that there will be the types of legal challenge that cause delay. Frankly, it would also strengthen the position of the Government and the commission if they were faced with such legal challenges.

It would be in everybody’s interests, frankly, to strengthen the Bill. Although the current clause makes some provision for such publicity and consultation through regulation, it is better to strengthen what is set out on the face of the Bill. It still leaves flexibility, but we want to strengthen it.

Amendment No. 186 deals with a point that I raised with some witnesses and which other witnesses volunteered during evidence, namely the Aarhus convention on access to information, public participation in decision making and access to justice in environmental matters. The Government accept this as a benchmark that should be achieved as a matter of good practice. It relates to the potential for any legal challenge involving European and human rights issues and it seems to us that it is good and right to incorporate this.

The amendment would insert a new clause to provide for early public participation, when all the options are open and effective, and a fair and transparent framework. That may sound a little like motherhood and apple pie, but it is in the convention to which the Government signed up. We have lifted the text from articles 6.4 and 7 of the convention, so we cannot see how the Government should have any difficulty with the amendment as it is something to which they, as a matter of policy, adhere. Putting it in the Bill should proof it against potential challenge and would also make realistic the commitment to participation and an acceptance too that we take the environmental impacts of these important infrastructure projects seriously when looking at the balance.

The remaining amendments can almost be taken as a package. Amendment No. 187 seeks to lay down certain minimum consultation periods and so it broadens the areas within the subsection to which application is required. We then set out minimum standards in relation to a consultation period of not less than 12 weeks. We do not think that is at all unreasonable in the circumstances. Secondly we set a minimum level of publicity. None of this is difficult or onerous. It is the sort of formulation that is well known and accepted in planning law and planning practice. It will not create vast expense but it is the sort of thing that is accessible to individuals and local communities who may be affected by the Bill. In the overall scheme of things it would not create any massive delay, but would give people a decent chance to be aware of what it is and get their tackle in order if they want to make representations.

Amendment No. 189 would provide that the main environmental agencies and the devolved Executives are consulted specifically on national policy statements. The Environment Agency in its written submission and evidence was concerned that it should be in the loop. It seems only right, too, that bodies such as the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission and the Local Government Association should be involved. Partnership and close working with local government is something that the Government often stress as being important. If such applications are to go smoothly, it is far better to have them involved at the earlier stage and to give them the assurance that they will be involved. It is not just a question of good intentions and practice; they would have the comfort of knowing that they have the right to be involved. I suspect that that reduces the risk of challenge. In (4A) and (4B) it is proposed that we make the parallel arrangements for the devolved Administrations, whose rights ought equally to be respected.

If the Minister is in a receptive mood, amendment No. 245, which should perhaps refer to (4D) and (4E) rather than (4A) and (4B), would give the public a minimum period in which to make representations. Thirteen weeks is not unreasonable because, sometimes, national policy statements will involve complex issues both of law and fact. Thirteen weeks is not an unreasonable period for people to be able to make meaningful representations. In the overall scheme of things, it would not create massive delays. Better 13 weeks for the public to get their act together than the length of time it takes for a judicial review on the basis that there was inadequate consultation to begin with.

The amendment would stress the importance of the environmental report and the appropriate impacts directive, and would take account of the importance of the environmental assessment of plans and programmes directive and, when appropriate, the habitats directive. The Government sign up to and endorse those directives, so we are simply asking them to adopt what they regard as good practice and policy. It would not be terribly onerous for them to take the measures on board.

On amendment No. 190, we come back to the Minister’s point that there will be certain instances in which national policy statements will be location-specific or, at least, they will create a shortlist of locations. The amendment would apply the same logic and established techniques that I mentioned to ensure that there are advertisements at a local level, and that local publicity is meaningful rather than rarefied at a national level.

Amendment No. 191 is connected to amendment No. 190, but it stresses the importance of consulting not only national local authorities and the devolved bodies, but the local authorities that would be directly affected by such cases. If there are only three or four locations for, say, an airport, port or power station, it is surely right and sensible to entrench the rights of the local authorities affected to be consulted.

Amendment No. 246 would make explicit measures that seem to be in the Bill on the scope to modify proposals after consultation. There ought to be that scope. I am sure that the Minister will want to take on board and amend proposals when sensible and cogent points are made by consultees, and the amendment would give him the opportunity to do so.

Amendment No. 247 states what most people would, I hope, regard as good practice. Certainly, the measure would be consistent with the approach generally adopted in judicial or quasi-judicial matters, which is to say that it would give the people involved a right to a reasoned decision. It states:

“The Secretary of State shall give reasons for designating a statement as a national policy statement”

if people have exercised their right to make representations to the contrary. When the Secretary of State makes a decision, as is his or her right, it seems only just and fair that they give a reasoned decision as to why. The measure would not be onerous or complicated, but it follows from the good practice that one expects, and which is increasingly enshrined in both domestic and European law.

We hope that the Committee does not see the amendments as obstructive; rather, we are seeking to improve the Bill. I hope that they find favour with the Minister.

Clive Betts (Labour, Sheffield, Attercliffe)

We are discussing this group of amendments slightly later than I had anticipated, so I shall be yet more brief than I originally intended. I shall speak to amendments Nos. 90 to 95.

I am sure that I shall not tempt my hon. Friend the Minister down the road of amendment No. 94, which suggests that the Secretary of State might publish options that were “seriously entertained” as well as the final view that he or she arrives at on any statements and revisions. I am sure that if my hon. Friend went that far, he would have every Secretary of State in the Cabinet and several civil servants sticking pins in his image because of what they had to give away from discussions held before they reached their final decisions.

I wish to probe the Minister a little particularly on amendments Nos. 90 to 92, which deal with subsection (2). Precisely what do the words mean? Subsection (2) states:

“The Secretary of State must carry out such consultation, and arrange for such publicity, as the Secretary of State thinks appropriate”.

Why is that different from what I suggest in my amendments, which would have subsection (2) simply say that the Secretary of State must carry out consultation and publicity?

Why does the subsection state:

“as the Secretary of State thinks appropriate”?

Perhaps the words are irrelevant and otiose, and need not be in the clause, because the Secretary of State will carry out the consultation and arrange for the publicity that people will generally consider to be reasonable and appropriate. I accept that we cannot prescribe in detail every situation, or the details of the publicity and consultation that will be appropriate to every policy statement.

What do the words

“as the Secretary of State thinks appropriate”

actually mean? Are they significant? Do they mean anything in practice? If they do not, why are they there? If they do, is it possible to conceive of a situation in which the Secretary of State might think that no publicity and no consultation were appropriate? Technically, that would be an entirely logical reading of that form of words. I presume that we will get the Minister to say that that is not what is intended. If it is not what is intended, why do the words make it a logical possibility?

I accept the argument that because one cannot be absolutely prescriptive in an Act of Parliament about the nature of consultation and publicity for every situation. In the end there may have to be a test of what is reasonable in the courts or through a judicial review. But, again, thinking ahead to that potential test, if the subsection had my wording, which simply says that there should be consultation and publicity, the test would be whether the consultation and publicity were such that the venerated man on the Clapham omnibus—I suppose that these days it could be a woman—would think it reasonable in the circumstances.

However, as the subsection is worded now, that would not be the test that would be put to a judicial review. The test would be whether the Secretary of State has been reasonable in coming to the view that he or she thinks is appropriate, which is different. It is not whether the man in the street thinks that something is reasonable but whether the Secretary of State has come to a reasonable decision about what he thinks is appropriate.

I am trying to tease out the difference in that regard, and whether there is something slightly sinister behind the restrictive nature of what the consultation might be and what the Secretary of State might think, which might be totally different from what outside groups that expect to be consulted might think, or whether the subsection is, in fact, almost irrelevant—that is, it is a nice form of words and we can discount their meaning because we can presume that Secretaries of State will behave reasonably, as judged by the man on the Clapham omnibus.

Dan Rogerson (Liberal Democrat, North Cornwall)

I have tabled two amendments in this group. One is on a significant matter, and one is just to make a point that was made to me by somebody who had looked at the Bill. Amendment No. 55 concerns publicising the consultation in formats accessible to people with disabilities. It seeks to ensure that the consultation is in an appropriate form for everybody. I am sure that the Minister will say that that is Government practice anyway, and that we are very good at doing it, but the fact that organisations that represent people with disabilities suggested the amendment would tend to indicate that they do not feel that that is necessarily always the case. I hope that the Minister will bear that in mind when considering this group of amendments.

Amendment No. 160, which may seem rather specific, refers to two local papers. The matter was raised with me by someone else who looked at the Bill. Of two local papers in an area, one might have a much higher circulation than the other, and it may be possible to meet the provisions of the Bill by advertising in the paper that is not as widely read as the other one. That is the issue that was raised with me. It is a relatively minor point, but it is important to make it because it is essential to ensure that consultation documents and advertising reach all members of the community and amendment No. 55 may be helpful in that respect.

The hon. Members who have already spoken to their amendments raised some important matters and made some very good points and I look forward to the Minister’s response to them.

David Jones (Conservative, Clwyd West)

I speak briefly in support of amendment No. 189, which would include in the Bill a list of statutory consultees, and especially to subsection (4)(c), which relates to the National Assembly for Wales.

The amendment is particularly important because in the fullness of time the Committee will consider new clauses containing framework powers in favour of the Welsh Assembly, which will empower it to make primary legislation in connection with the Wales spatial plan and local development plans in Wales.

If those clauses are enacted, the Welsh Assembly will obtain primary legislative competence in respect of a large and important area of planning law in Wales and it is therefore likely that planning law in Wales will start to diverge significantly from that in England.

As we are talking about national planning statements it is essential that the need to consult the Welsh Assembly Government is stated in the Bill, especially with regard to the developments in Wales in terms of primary legislation..

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

Most, if not all, of the amendments are reasonable and have led to an interesting debate. Like the hon. Gentleman, I will speak briefly to amendment No. 189 and the need to consult the Welsh Assembly Government, the Environment Agency, the Countryside Council for Wales and the Welsh Local Government Association when a national policy statement relates in whole or in part to Wales.

I am sure the Minister will say in response that the Environment Minister from the Welsh Assembly Government would be party to the whole thing in any event, but it would be as well to have it in the Bill and to have a statement from the Minister to that effect, including references to the other statutory consultees, as it is an important matter.

John Healey (Labour, Wentworth)

If there is anything sinister in the difference in the wording, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe suggested, I am unaware of it and it is completely unintended.

The proposal was framed to make it clear that responsibility for complicity and consultation about the decisions and developments of the national policy statements rests with the Secretary of State. I can assure my hon. Friend that in discharging those duties the Secretary of State would act reasonably. If he did not do so, he could be challenged.

The hon. Members for Bromley and Chislehurst and for Beckenham mentioned the Aarhus convention several times and I am glad to note the context in which we are returning to that matter. Essentially, the UK has ratified that convention and we are obliged to ensure that our domestic legislation is consistent with it. Public involvement at the three important stages of the Bill—the production of national policy statements, the pre-application hearings and the hearing of applications—ensures that that is the case in these provisions and the effect of the hon. Gentleman’s amendments would be negligible.

Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

Will the Minister give way on that point?

John Healey (Labour, Wentworth)

I knew I was making a mistake by taking a breath.

Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

Is the Minister saying that it is the Government’s intention that any regulations that prescribe the forms of consultation will ensure that the consultation is fully compliant with the Aarhus convention?

John Healey (Labour, Wentworth)

Giving people an early and effective opportunity to have their say is at the heart of the Aarhus convention. We will ensure that that happens.

As I have emphasised, we have a strong commitment—this is a shared interest with Opposition Members—that proper information and consultation will underpin the production of any national policy statement. However, in response to a number of amendments, I do not think that it is appropriate to set out detailed procedures and processes in the Bill for the production of information and publicity or for consultation. That is not least because the accepted standards for good information and consultation vary.

Government consultations often centre on the code of practice on consultation. I did not know this before this afternoon, but last year we had a consultation on the consultation code and on whether that guidance should be revised. As a result of that consultation, we propose to revise the guidance on consultation in order to ensure that all sorts of people can be consulted effectively and kept properly informed.

James Duddridge (Conservative, Rochford and Southend East)

“Yes, Minister”.

John Healey (Labour, Wentworth)

No, it is worse than that—I am not reading from brief.

We would expect any consultation on national policy statements to reflect that revised guidance, but it is not available at the moment. I make that point to underline the view that it is not sensible to specify that sort of detail in primary legislation because it becomes rigid, inflexible and difficult to change. Such detail might not be appropriate for every type of national policy statement because they will vary from type to type.

On the concern that the hon. Member for North Cornwall raised with amendment No. 55, in the spirit of what I have just said and in the spirit of the code on consultation, it is important that all parts of the public and all communities are consulted properly on proposals for national policy statements that might affect them. Certain disabled people have particular requirements. Those are met through the disability discrimination legislation and the development of national policy statements will be subject to the terms and the imperatives of that legislation. Therefore, it is not necessary to incorporate such measures in the Bill. Where it is necessary to publicise the proposals of national policy statements locally, we have determined that it will be thorough and effective. We will consider the needs of disabled people in that process. Given that reassurance, I hope that he will not seek to press his amendment to a vote.

Before I sit down, I wish to double back and deal with the point made by the hon. Members for Clwyd, West and for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy about statutory consultees. There is provision to specify statutory consultees. I suggest to both hon. Members that identifying particular statutory consultees in the Bill is not the best way to do it. However, I can reassure them that we intend to include the Ministers in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales as statutory consultees on national policy statements that extend to their respective areas. Beyond that, we will specify the statutory consultees through regulation. We have the provision in the Bill to do that and will consult widely on who should be statutory consultees.

Once again, certain parties might be appropriate and rightful consultees for certain national policy statements and others might properly be consultees for all national policy statements. That will vary and is not an appropriate matter to be specified in the Bill. I hope that I have been able to give Members sufficient reassurance and clarity and that they will therefore not press their amendments to a vote and let clause 7 stand part of the Bill.

Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

I am grateful to the Minister for that response and hope that the Government will deliver in the spirit to which he has referred. Given what he has said, I am content to withdraw the amendment.

Dan Rogerson (Liberal Democrat, North Cornwall)

I am grateful to the Minister for the comments that he made about amendment No. 55 and the need to ensure that consultation and publicity is accessible in all formats. As we have that on record, I will not press my amendment.

Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

The rest of the debate is in Hansard.